Goolsby v. Cate et al
Filing
53
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 50 Motion for Stay; ORDER GRANTING Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Court to Declare Plaintiff Vexatious Litigant; Ninety-Day Deadline for Plaintiff to File Opposition signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/10/2015. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
THOMAS GOOLSBY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
1:13-cv-00119-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR STAY
(ECF No. 50.)
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR COURT TO
DECLARE PLAINTIFF VEXATIOUS
LITIGANT
NINETY-DAY DEADINE FOR PLAINTIFF
TO FILE OPPOSITION
18
19
20
21
22
I.
BACKGROUND
23
Thomas Goolsby ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
24
pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on
25
January 25, 2013. (Doc. 1.) The case now proceeds with the Second Amended Complaint filed
26
on June 6, 2014, on Plaintiff=s Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Warden Kimberly
27
Holland, Warden Michael Stainer, and Captain J. Lundy, for denial of adequate outdoor
28
exercise time; and defendants Captain J. Lundy, Sergeant S. Foster, Plumlee (Maintenance
1
Supervisor), Warden Kimberly Holland, Correctional Officer Jordon, and Correctional Officer
2
Uribe, for deliberate indifference to unsanitary and unsafe conditions.1 (ECF No. 34.)
This case is now in the discovery phase, pursuant to the court’s scheduling order issued
3
4
on July 24, 2015. (ECF No. 49.)
5
On July 23, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for the court to declare Plaintiff a
6
vexatious litigant.
7
Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 50.) Defendants have not filed an opposition.
8
II.
(ECF No. 46.)
On August 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay
MOTION FOR STAY
9
Plaintiff requests the court to stay Defendants’ motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious
10
litigant, to allow Plaintiff time to conduct discovery to oppose the motion. The court does not
11
lightly stay litigation, due to the possibility of prejudice to defendants, and here, a stay of the
12
proceedings is not Plaintiff’s only remedy. In the alternative, good cause appearing, Plaintiff
13
shall be granted a ninety-day extension of time to file his opposition to Defendants’ motion. If
14
Plaintiff requires additional time, he should file a motion for extension of time before the
15
expiration of the ninety-day deadline.
16
III.
CONCLUSION
17
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
18
1.
Plaintiff's motion for stay, filed on August 7, 2015, is DENIED; and
19
2.
Good cause appearing, Plaintiff is GRANTED an extension of time until ninety
20
days from the date of service of this order, in which to file his opposition to
21
Defendants’ motion for the court to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant.
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 10, 2015
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
28
1
On March 24, 2015, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from
this action, for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under § 1983. (ECF No. 36.)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?