Garland v. Stanley, et al.

Filing 40

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Discovery (ECF No. 39 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/13/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

SHAUN DARNELL GARLAND,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

v.
C. STANLEY, et al.,

Case No. 1:12-cv-1755-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
(ECF No. 39)

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 4.) The action
proceeds against Defendants Lindsey, Nickell, Stanley, and John Doe on Plaintiff’s
Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim. (ECF Nos. 6 & 8.) Defendants
Lindsey, Nickell, and Stanley were served and have appeared in the action. (ECF Nos.
12 & 15.) Defendant Doe has not been identified.
On March 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel a further response to his
request for admissions. (ECF No. 22.) On August 5, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment. On September 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen discovery

1 and for an extension of time to oppose the summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 28.)
2

The Court ruled on Plaintiff’s discovery motions on February 2, 2015, and

3 afforded Plaintiff until February 25, 2015 to file his opposition to the summary judgment
4 motion. (ECF No. 37.)
5

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s February 9, 2015, motion to compel the discovery

6 addressed in the Court’s February 2, 2015 order. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff’s motion is
7 dated February 2, 2015, the same date as the Court’s order. Plaintiff presumably did not
8 receive the Court’s order prior to filing his request.
9

As stated, the Court has ruled on these discovery requests. (ECF No. 37.)

10 Plaintiff provides no basis for reconsideration of the Court’s prior order. See Fed. R. Civ.
11 P. 60(b); Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880
12 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s February 9, 2015 motion to compel discovery
13 (ECF No. 39) is HEREBY DENIED.
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 13, 2015

/s/

17

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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