Harold Walker v. Vazquez et al

Filing 69

ORDER Advising Parties that Discovery has not Commenced in this Action and ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 60 Motion for Discovery and GRANTING Defendant's 68 Motion for Protective Order signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/16/2009. (Figueroa, O)

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

HAROLD WALKER, Plaintiff, v. HUTCHINSON, et al., Defendants.

1:05-cv-00709-GSA-PC ORDER ADVISING PARTIES THAT DISCOVERY HAS NOT COMMENCED IN THIS ACTION ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER (Docs. 60, 68.)

Plaintiff Harold Walker ("plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on June 2, 2005. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the amended complaint filed by plaintiff on February 28, 2007, against defendants Hutchinson, Miranda, Hagea, Salgado, Sanoval, and Welch ("Defendants").1 (Doc. 28.) On November 24, 2008, the court directed the United States Marshal to serve process upon Defendants. (Doc. 47.) On March 16, 2009, defendants Miranda, Sanoval and Welch filed a motion to dismiss, which is now pending. (Doc. 58.) To date, none of the Defendants has filed an Answer to the amended complaint. On March 18, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for discovery, requesting the court to compel Defendants to produce documents. (Doc. 60.) On April 14, 2009, defendants Miranda, Sanoval and Welch filed a motion for a protective order to stay discovery pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss. (Doc. 68.)

T h e court dismissed all other defendants on November 12, 2008. (Doc. 44.)

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6i0kij 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The parties are hereby advised that the time for discovery in this action has not commenced. The court shall establish a discovery schedule after the pending motion to dismiss has been resolved, by issuing a scheduling order which shall be served upon all parties to this action. Until then, the parties shall not pursue discovery in this action. Defendants may disregard any pending discovery requests which have been served upon them by plaintiff. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for discovery is DENIED and defendants' motion for a protective order is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:

April 16, 2009

/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2