Bussiere v. Cano et al

Filing 82

ORDER Granting Defendant's 72 Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss; ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 74 Request for Status of Pending Motions; ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 63 64 65 66 73 Motions for Discovery, without Prejudice; ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 80 Motion for Hearing to Review Pending Motions signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 03/07/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
ARTHUR T. BUSSIERE,

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00945-AWI-GBC (PC)

12
13
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING
RESOLUTION OF MOTION TO DISMISS

14
Doc. 72
15

v.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR STATUS OF PENDING MOTIONS

16
17

CANO, et al.,

Doc. 74

18
19

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR DISCOVERY, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Defendants.
Docs. 63, 64, 65, 66, 73

20
21

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR HEARING TO REVIEW PENDING
MOTIONS

22
/ Doc. 80
23
24

On May 26, 2010, Plaintiff Arthur T. Bussiere (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro

25

se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. On

26

November 7, 2011, Defendant Lopez filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative

27

remedies. Doc. 62. On February 2, 2012, Defendant Lopez filed a motion to stay discovery pending

28

resolution of the motion to dismiss. Doc. 72. On February 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for status
Page 1 of 2

1

of pending motions. Doc. 74.1 On March 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a hearing to review

2

pending motions. Doc. 80. On March 5, 2012, the undersigned issued findings and

3

recommendations, recommending to grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss, for failure to exhaust

4

administrative remedies. Doc. 81.

5

Given that resolution of Defendant’s motion to dismiss may conclude this action and render

6

any need for discovery unnecessary, Defendant’s motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. Discovery

7

is HEREBY ORDERED STAYED, pending the District Judge’s ruling on the findings and

8

recommendations.2 Therefore, Plaintiff’s pending discovery motions are DENIED, without

9

prejudice.3 Furthermore, a hearing is not necessary to review Plaintiff’s pending motions, pursuant

10

to Local Rule 230(l).

11

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

Defendant’s motion to stay discovery is GRANTED;

13

2.

Plaintiff’s pending discovery motions are DENIED, without prejudice;

14

3.

Discovery is STAYED pending this Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss; and

15

4.

Plaintiff’s motion for hearing to review pending motions is DENIED.

16
17
18
19

ie14hj IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated:
7j8cce

March 7, 2012
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25

1

26

2

27
28

This order serves as a status of Plaintiff’s pending motions.

Should the District Judge decline to adopt the findings and recommendations, the Court will lift this order
staying discovery and reinstate the scheduling order or issue an amended scheduling order.
3

Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief and motion to amend his complaint remain pending on the Court’s
docket. Docs. 58, 71, 75.
Page 2 of 2