Lamon v. Adams et al

Filing 107

ORDER DENYING 78 Motion to Compel, 94 Motion for TRO and 97 Motion for Extension, signed by District Judge David G. Campbell on 03/17/2011. (Martin, S)

(PC) Lamon v. Adams et al

Doc. 107

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Barry Louis Lamon, Plaintiff, vs. Derral G. Adams, et al., Defendants. No. 1:07-cv-00829-DGC ORDER

Plaintiff is confined in the state prison in Corcoran, California. He commenced this pro se civil rights action in June 2007 by filing a complaint against several correctional officers. Doc. 1. Plaintiff subsequently filed multiple amended complaints. Docs. 11, 18, 27. On April 10, 2009, the Court issued a screening order requiring answers to certain claims asserted in the third amended complaint and dismissing the remaining claims without prejudice. Doc. 28. On September 17, 2009, the Court issued a case management order setting a May 21, 2010 discovery deadline and a July 23, 2010 dispositive motion deadline. Doc. 47. Those deadlines subsequently were extended, respectively, to August 20 and December 17, 2010. Docs. 68, 92. Pending before the Court are several non-dispositive motions, each of which will be denied. On the last day of the discovery period, Defendants filed a motion to compel discovery responses and for an extension of time to file a further motion to compel. Doc. 78. The Court gave Plaintiff until December 3, 2010 to respond to that motion

Dockets.Justia.com

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

(Doc. 92), but this deadline passed without a response having been filed.

On

November 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed two motions: a motion for injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring prison officials to provide Plaintiff access to the law library (Doc. 94), and a motion for an extension of time to file a motion to compel discovery (Doc. 97). This case is nearly four years old. The deadline for completing discovery has expired, and a dispositive motion has been filed by Defendants. Doc. 99. Briefing on that motion will be complete by April 5, 2011. See Doc. 106. The Court will issue a ruling on the motion shortly thereafter. Given the age of this case, and the fact that a dispositive has been filed, the Court finds the non-dispositive motions to be moot. The Court will not reopen the discovery period or otherwise entertain motions to compel discovery. Plaintiff has filed a full response to the dispositive motion (Doc. 103),

rendering moot his request for access to the prison law library. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. Defendants' motion to compel discovery responses and request for an

extension of time (Doc. 78) is denied. 2. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary

injunction (Doc. 94) is denied. 3. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file motion to compel

discovery (Doc. 97) is denied. Dated this 17th day of March, 2011.

-2-