Griffin v. Johnson et al

Filing 79

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's First Amended Motion to Lift Stay of Discovery 76 ; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Require Responses to Plaintiff's First Requests for Production of Documents 77 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/16/16. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN,

Case No. 1:13-CV-01599-LJO-BAM (PC)

14

v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST AMENDED MOTION TO LIFT
STAY OF DISCOVERY

15

A. JOHNSON, et al.,

(ECF No. 76)

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REQUIRE RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Defendants.

16
17
18

(ECF No. 77)

19
20
21

Plaintiff Matthew James Griffin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se

22

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action

23

proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for excessive force and for deliberate

24

indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against

25

Defendants Johnson, Gonzales, Valdez, Munoz, Sexton, Ross, Thor, Doe, Kul, Busch,

26

Bell, and Smith.

27
28

Currently before the Court are two motions by Plaintiff: (1) a motion to lift the
stay of discovery in this matter, (ECF No. 76); and (2) a motion to require responses to
1

1

Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production, (ECF No. 77.) Both of these motions are

2

denied, because they are moot.

3

On May 5, 2016, the Court previously issued an order lifting the stay of discovery

4

in this case, and requiring Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s requests for production

5

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of that order. (ECF No. 75.) Thus, the relief

6

Plaintiff seeks in his motions has already been granted. The May 5, 2016 order may have

7

crossed Plaintiff’s motions in the mail, but he is now fully informed by the Court of the

8

current status. No further motions or filings regarding this specific relief are needed.

9
10
11
12
13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s first amended motion to lift the stay of discovery in this matter

(ECF No. 76) is DENIED as moot; and,
2.

Plaintiff’s motion to require responses to his first set of requests for

production (ECF No. 77) is DENIED as moot.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 16, 2016

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2