Moore v. Gipson et al

Filing 81

ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Plaintiff's Request to Suspend All Matters in This Case or Grant 90-Day Extension of Time 76 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/29/2018: 30-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MERRICK JOSE MOORE,

12

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO SUSPEND ALL MATTERS IN
THIS CASE OR GRANT 90-DAY
EXTENSION OF TIME

Defendants.

(ECF No. 76)

13
14
15
16

v.
GIPSON, et al,

Case No. 1:13-cv-01820-DAD-BAM (PC)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

17
18

Plaintiff Merrick Jose Moore (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

19

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

20

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force against Defendants Meier, Casas,

21

Childress, and Adams, and for failure to intervene against Defendants Ford and Thornburg.

22

On February 7, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ pending motion to compel responses

23

to discovery and ordered Plaintiff to serve supplemental discovery responses within thirty (30)

24

days. (ECF No. 64.) On April 3, 2018, with no opposition from Defendants, the Court granted

25

Plaintiff’s motion for a thirty-day extension of time to serve such responses. (ECF Nos. 67, 72.)

26

On April 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed a request to suspend all matters in this case or an

27

extension of ninety (90) days to serve his supplemental discovery responses. (ECF No. 76.)

28

Defendants filed a status report in response on May 7, 2018, (ECF No. 78), and Plaintiff filed a
1

1

response on May 24, 2018, (ECF No. 79). The Court construes Plaintiff’s request as a motion for

2

stay or, in the alternative, an extension of time. The motion is deemed submitted.

3

Plaintiff states that on March 28, 2018, he was transferred to Corcoran. Upon his arrival,

4

custody took control of Plaintiff’s legal property, which was placed on the day-room table.

5

Plaintiff sought to secure his property from both second and third watch but was unsuccessful.

6

As a result, Plaintiff states that he suffered a mental break down and was sent to Corcoran’s

7

Mental Health Crisis Bed, and later was sent to California Health Care Facility (CHCF) by a

8

psychologist. After receiving the Court’s order granting his request for a thirty-day extension of

9

time, Plaintiff was informed by various staff members that no library, supplies of legal material,

10
11

or copies were available. (ECF No. 76.)
Based on these facts, Plaintiff requests a stay in this matter until Plaintiff has notified the

12

Court in writing that he has been discharged from the hospital and given his property and legal

13

property, or the Court has directed Corcoran State Prison to produce Plaintiff’s property, or that

14

he be granted a ninety-day extension of time. (Id.)

15

In Defendants’ May 7, 2018 status report, defense counsel states that he investigated

16

Plaintiff’s claims. Defendants confirm that Plaintiff was transferred from Richard J. Donovan

17

Correctional Facility to California State Prison – Corcoran on March 29, 2018, and then to CHCF

18

on April 1, 2018 for mental health treatment. Defendants state that Plaintiff’s property was not

19

transferred to CHCF because he may only remain in acute care for 7–10 days, unless he is

20

referred to a higher level of care. Based on the apparent temporary nature of Plaintiff’s housing

21

situation, Defendants request that any extension of time be limited to thirty days, and Plaintiff’s

22

request for a stay be denied. (ECF No. 78.)

23

In his reply, Plaintiff states that on May 10, 2018, he was transferred back to Richard J.

24

Donovan. Plaintiff states that he does not have access to his legal property, which remains at

25

Corcoran. (ECF No. 79.)

26

Having considered the request, and in light of Plaintiff’s assertion that he remains without

27

access to his legal property, the Court finds good cause to partially grant the motion. Fed. R. Civ.

28

P. 6(b). However, given the lengthy history of this discovery dispute, the Court declines to grant
2

1

Plaintiff’s request for a stay of this action. Further extensions of time will not be granted without

2

a showing of good cause, and Plaintiff should specifically identify the reasons for his failure to

3

timely provide discovery responses. Within seven (7) days of filing of any future request by

4

Plaintiff for an extension of time, Defendants shall file a statement of opposition or non-

5

opposition.

6

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to serve supplemental responses

7

to Defendants’ discovery requests, (ECF No. 78), is HEREBY GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff

8

shall serve supplemental responses to Defendant Ford’s Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 2–3; and

9

Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, No. 4, within thirty (30) days from

10

the date of service of this order. Plaintiff’s request for a stay of this action is DENIED.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 29, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3