Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01773/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01773-8/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

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:11cv01773 DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO STAY DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Document 36)

Plaintiff Thomas Goolsby (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

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

on October 25, 2011.1

This action is proceeding on First Amendment retaliation claims and due process claims 

against Defendants Holland, Steadman, Gutierrez, Noyce, Tyree, Gentry, Eubanks, Medrano and 

Holman.

Defendants’ November 26, 2013, Motion to Dismiss is currently pending. 

 

1 On December 5, 2011, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. By separate 

order, Defendants have been ordered to notify the Court whether they consent or decline to jurisdiction of the United 

States Magistrate Judge.

Case 1:11-cv-01773-LJO-DLB Document 45 Filed 01/09/14 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

On December 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Stay Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss. Defendants did not oppose the motion. The motion is therefore deemed submitted 

pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay is based on his contention that Defendants have improperly 

attempted to introduce outside documents into the record. Plaintiff requests that either the Court 

disallow the documents, or stay the motion to allow Plaintiff to conduct discovery.

Plaintiff is assured that if Defendants have attempted to introduce documents outside of 

the scope of a Motion to Dismiss, the Court will deal with the documents accordingly. 

Moreover, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 6, 2014, with over 150 

pages of exhibits.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:11-cv-01773-LJO-DLB Document 45 Filed 01/09/14 Page 2 of 2