Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00782/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00782-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANCE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC ARNOLD, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0782 DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff makes two motions: (1) for a stay of defendants’ motion for summary judgment, 

or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file a response to that motion; and (2) for 

“limited correspondence” with a witness or witnesses to permit him to obtain affidavit(s). Good 

cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s August 9, 2016 motion (Dkt. No. 26) is granted in part and denied in part. 

Plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings on defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment is denied. Plaintiff’s alternative motion for an extension of time is 

unopposed and is granted. Within sixty (60) days of the filed date of this order, 

plaintiff shall file any response to the motion for summary judgment. Any reply shall 

be filed and served in accordance with Local Rule 230(l).

2. Plaintiff’s August 10, 2016 motion for limited correspondence (Dkt. No. 27) is denied

because plaintiff has failed to show the affidavit(s) he seeks are relevant to the issues 

Case 2:15-cv-00782-JAM-DB Document 29 Filed 08/18/16 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

raised by defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants move for summary 

judgment on the grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies 

prior to filing this federal suit. In his motion for stay, plaintiff states that he seeks the 

affidavit of one witness who “authored” his 602 Inmate/Parolee Appeal. The fact that 

on March 29, 2015 plaintiff filed a 602 is not in dispute. (See Statement of 

Undisputed Facts, Dkt. No. 24-3.) Plaintiff has failed to establish good cause for 

discovery because he has not shown “the issues on which discovery is necessary” 

pursuant to Local Rule 260(b). 

Dated: August 17, 2016

DLB:9

DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/will0782.36

Case 2:15-cv-00782-JAM-DB Document 29 Filed 08/18/16 Page 2 of 2