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.)