Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01239/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01239-1/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

BERNARD HENDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES A. YATES,

Defendant.

 /

1:07-cv-01239-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER ADVISING PARTIES THAT

DISCOVERY HAS NOT COMMENCED IN

THIS ACTION

 

ORDER RESOLVING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Doc. 12)

 

Plaintiff Bernard Henderson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on May 30, 2007, at the Fresno

County Superior Court. On August 24, 2007, the case was removed by defendant Yates

(“defendant”) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. On December

7, 2007, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On December 10, 2007, the court issued an order

advising the parties that the court will screen the amended complaint in due time. On December 26,

2007, defendant filed a motion for a protective order to stay discovery pending the court’s screening

of the amended complaint.

In the motion for a protective order, defendant states that plaintiff served defendant with

discovery requests on November 9, 2007. Defendant requests an extension of time to respond to

plaintiff’s pending discovery requests.

The parties are hereby advised that the time for discovery in this action has not commenced.

The court shall establish a discovery schedule at a later date by issuing a scheduling order which

Case 1:07-cv-01239-LJO-GSA Document 14 Filed 01/24/08 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

shall be served upon all parties to this action. Until then, the parties shall not pursue discovery in

this action. Defendant may disregard any pending discovery requests which have been served upon

him by plaintiff. As such, defendant’s motion for a protective order is hereby resolved.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 23, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij UNI 8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01239-LJO-GSA Document 14 Filed 01/24/08 Page 2 of 2