Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05006/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05006-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES MICKEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. SKEELS, 

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-5006-REC-SMS-P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND

STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING

RESOLUTION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT 

(Doc. 36)

Plaintiff James Mickey (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by

federal actors. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint against defendant Skeels

(“defendant”), a federal agent, for depriving him of his property without due process of law. On July

29, 2005, defendant filed a motion seeking a protective order shielding her from having to respond

to plaintiff’s discovery requests served on June 29, 2005, and staying discovery pending resolution

of her motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion.

“Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought . . . , and for good

cause shown, the court . . . may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person

from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(c). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment on June 27,

2005. Plaintiff sought to continue the motion pending further discovery, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), but

Case 1:03-cv-05006-REC -SMS Document 41 Filed 09/21/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

his motion was denied by the court on August 16, 2005. In light of plaintiff’s failure to oppose the

motion and plaintiff’s previous unsuccessful attempt to continue the motion pending further

discovery, and based on a review of defendant’s pending motion to dismiss or for summary

judgment, the court finds good cause for granting defendant’s motion for a protective order. See

Wood v. McEwen, 644 F2d. 797, 801-02 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion for a protective order, filed July 29, 2005, is GRANTED;

2. Defendantis shielding from having to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests served

on June 29, 2005; and

3. Discovery is stayed pending resolution of defendant’s motion to dismiss or for

summary judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05006-REC -SMS Document 41 Filed 09/21/05 Page 2 of 2