Allen v. Meyer et al

Filing 79

ORDER GRANTING 76 Plaintiff's Motion to Correct Mistake in January 16, 2015, Order signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 2/11/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

KELVIN ALLEN,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.
MEYER, et al.,

13

Case No. 1:09-cv-00729 DLB PC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO CORRECT MISTAKE IN
JANUARY 16, 2015, ORDER
(Document 76)

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff Kelvin Allen (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis

16

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 20, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of

17

Appeals remanded the action to this Court with instructions to vacate the judgment.

18
19
20
21
22

Pursuant to the July 23, 2014, Notice of Appearance, Plaintiff is represented by counsel for
the limited purpose of resolving the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Defendants’ November 25, 2014, motion for judgment on the pleadings based on exhaustion
is pending.
On January 16, 2015, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to modify the Discovery and

23

Scheduling Order. The Court vacated the dates and stayed all discovery because of the issues raised

24

by Plaintiff’s limited representation.

25

On January 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to correct a mistake in the Court’s January 16,

26

2015, order. In the alterative, Plaintiff moves for reconsideration for the limited purpose of

27

correcting the mistake. The Court deems the matter suitable for decision without an opposition.

28
1

1

In moving to stay discovery, Defendants stated that they “timely moved for judgment on the

2

pleadings, arguing that Allen’s prison grievance is insufficient to administratively exhaust all of the

3

claims raised in this action.” ECF No. 66, at 2. The Court understood this to mean that the pending

4

motion would be dispositive of all claims, and it so stated in the January 16, 2015, order.

5

However, as Plaintiff points out, the pending motion would only dispose of claims against

6

two of the six Defendants. Plaintiff does not ask for a different outcome, but only that the Court

7

amend the order to correct the language.

8

The Court is not suggesting that Defendants intended to mislead it in any way. Rather, it was

9

simply a misunderstanding. Nonetheless, the issues raised by Plaintiff’s limited representation still

10

exist, and the Court’s original intent in staying all discovery remains. Tattersalls, Ltd. v. DeHaven,

11

745 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 2014).

12
13

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. The Court will issue an amendment by
separate order.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

February 11, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2