Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01599/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01599-12/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

A. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-CV-01599-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

FIRST AMENDED MOTION TO LIFT 

STAY OF DISCOVERY

(ECF No. 76)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO REQUIRE RESPONSES 

TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUESTS 

FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

(ECF No. 77)

Plaintiff Matthew James Griffin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action 

proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for excessive force and for deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against 

Defendants Johnson, Gonzales, Valdez, Munoz, Sexton, Ross, Thor, Doe, Kul, Busch, 

Bell, and Smith.

Currently before the Court are two motions by Plaintiff: (1) a motion to lift the 

stay of discovery in this matter, (ECF No. 76); and (2) a motion to require responses to 

Case 1:13-cv-01599-LJO-BAM Document 79 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production, (ECF No. 77.) Both of these motions are 

denied, because they are moot. 

On May 5, 2016, the Court previously issued an order lifting the stay of discovery 

in this case, and requiring Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s requests for production 

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of that order. (ECF No. 75.) Thus, the relief 

Plaintiff seeks in his motions has already been granted. The May 5, 2016 order may have 

crossed Plaintiff’s motions in the mail, but he is now fully informed by the Court of the 

current status. No further motions or filings regarding this specific relief are needed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s first amended motion to lift the stay of discovery in this matter 

(ECF No. 76) is DENIED as moot; and,

2. Plaintiff’s motion to require responses to his first set of requests for 

production (ECF No. 77) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01599-LJO-BAM Document 79 Filed 05/17/16 Page 2 of 2