Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00960/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00960-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

ALVARO QUEZADA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:13-cv-00960-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REQUEST 

TO STAY DISCOVERY

(ECF No. 26)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 

Defendant Smith on Plaintiff’s First Amendment free exercise of religion, Fourteenth 

Amendment equal protection, and RLUIPA claims. (ECF No. 12.)

Before the Court is Defendant’s motion for a protective order and request to stay 

discovery. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 27.) Defendant filed a

reply. (ECF No. 29.) The matter is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Defendant seeks a protective order staying discovery until after the Court has 

issued a discovery and scheduling order in this case.1 According to Defendant, Plaintiff 

already has propounded document requests and interrogatories, even though Defendant 

 

1 Defendant also sought a stay on the ground that her motion to dismiss was pending. However, the 

motion since has been denied. (ECF No. 28.) Defendant thus has abandoned this ground for a stay. (ECF 

No. 29.)

Case 1:13-cv-00960-AWI-MJS Document 30 Filed 03/21/16 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

has not yet answered the complaint. Plaintiff responds that early discovery will assist him 

in uncovering material evidence relevant to his claims.

Plaintiff previously was advised that no discovery may be conducted in this action 

without permission until after Defendant files an answer and the Court issues a 

Discovery and Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 2 at 4.) Plaintiff has not sought permission to 

conduct early discovery, nor has he asserted a basis for granting such permission. 

Defendant has not answered, and no discovery order has issued. Plaintiff’s document 

requests and interrogatories are premature.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion for a protective order staying discovery is HEREBY 

GRANTED;

2. Absent further order of the Court, no discovery is permitted until after 

Defendant has answered and the Court has issued a Discovery and 

Scheduling Order; and

3. Defendant’s responses to discovery requests presently outstanding are 

due forty five days after the issuance of the Court’s Discovery and 

Scheduling Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00960-AWI-MJS Document 30 Filed 03/21/16 Page 2 of 2