Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02045/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02045-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
B. Atkinson
Defendant
Raymond McGinnis
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

RAYMOND McGINNIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. ATKINSON, 

Defendant.

1:12cv02045 AWI DLB PC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING 

(Document 17)

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Raymond McGinnis, a state 

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed this action on December 17, 2012. 

The action is proceeding against Defendant Atkinson for violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust on December 13, 

2013. On April 16, 2014, the Court converted the motion into a motion for summary judgment. 

On July 10, 2014, the Court granted limited discovery under Rule 56(d). Specifically, the 

Court permitted Plaintiff to serve two Requests for Production of Documents related to exhaustion.

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed two motions related to a discovery dispute. It appears 

that Plaintiff is moving to compel a further response to the two Requests for Production of 

Documents.

Case 1:12-cv-02045-AWI-DLB Document 39 Filed 09/26/14 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

Given that discovery matters remain ongoing, and for the Court’s administrative purposes 

only, the Court finds it appropriate to DENY Defendant’s motion for summary judgment WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE TO REFILING once the discovery disputes have been resolved.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 This order is not a ruling on the merits of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Case 1:12-cv-02045-AWI-DLB Document 39 Filed 09/26/14 Page 2 of 2