Millner v. Biter

Filing 91

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Compel as Moot 79 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/27/15. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES W. MILLNER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
MARTIN BITER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

19

Case No.: 1:13-cv-02029-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL AS MOOT
[ECF No. 79]

Plaintiff James W. Millner is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1983.
On June 23, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment relating to exhaustion of

20

the administrative remedies. (ECF No. 70.) On July 7, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to stay

21

discovery pending resolution of their motion for summary judgment relating to exhaustion of the

22

administrative remedies. The Court granted Defendants’ motion on July 9, 2015, and all merits-based

23

discovery was stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment relating to

24

exhaustion. (ECF No. 72.)

25

On July 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Plaintiff’s Partial Opposition to Defendants’

26

Motion for Stay of Discovery ….” (ECF No. 79.) Plaintiff seeks production of documents which he

27

contends fall outside of the Court’s stay of discovery. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks “his medical file

28

from July 14, 2013, to the present,” “his mental health file,” and “his psychiatric progress notes from
1

1

his placement in High Desert State Prison’s Mental Health Crisis bed from July 16, 2013 to July 25,

2

2013.” (ECF No. 79, Mot. at 1.) Plaintiff submits that such documentation may be relevant to his

3

argument related to exhaustion of the administrative remedies. (Id.)
On July 27, 2015, Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion and

4
5

interpreted Plaintiff’s request as a motion to compel. (ECF No. 83.) Plaintiff did not file a reply, and

6

the motion is deemed submitted to the Court for review. Local Rule 230(l).
“Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion to the extent Plaintiff asks for documents relating

7
8

to his alleged inability to file an inmate appeal from July 14, 2013 to September 2013.” (ECF No. 83,

9

Opp’n at 2:1-2.) Defendants submit that as a courtesy they will provide Plaintiff with a copy of his

10

medical records for the year 2013. (Id. at 2:4-5.) However, to the extent Plaintiff seeks documents

11

outside of the year of 2013, Defendants submit such documents are not relevant to Plaintiff’s alleged

12

inability to file an inmate appeal, and Defendants object to such production. (Id. at 2:5-7.) Plaintiff

13

has not opposed Defendants’ objection to documentation outside of the year of 2013 and there is no

14

basis to overrule such objection.
Accordingly, inasmuch as Defendants have agreed to produce the documents Plaintiff

15
16

requested by way of his motion to compel, no further relief is necessary, and Plaintiff’s motion to

17

compel is DENIED.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:

21

August 27, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2