Johnson v. Sweeney et al

Filing 56

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motions to Compel, Without Prejudice, to Renewal, if Appropriate, After the Issue of Exhaustion is Resolved, and DENYING Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time as Moot 40 , 44 , 55 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/12/16. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
SWEENEY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO
COMPEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, TO
RENEWAL, IF APPROPRIATE, AFTER THE
ISSUE OF EXHAUSTION IS RESOLVED, AND
DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT
[ECF Nos. 40, 44, 55]

Plaintiff Vance Edward Johnson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On January 15, 2016, and January 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed motions to compel discovery. (ECF

20

Nos. 40, 44.) On January 29, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’ request to extend the time to

21

respond to Plaintiff’s motions to compel until their pending motion for summary judgment relating to

22

exhaustion of the administrative remedies was resolved. (ECF No. 46.)

23

On July 27, 2016, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied

24

in part, without prejudice. (ECF No. 53.) All claims and Defendant Hardin were dismissed from the

25

action. (Id.) Sweeney is the sole remaining Defendant, and he was granted thirty days to file a

26

supplemental exhaustion-related motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s mail appeal retaliation

27

claim. (Id.)

28
1

In his motions to compel, Plaintiff seeks discovery as to the merits of his claims. However, as

1
2

just stated, the only remaining claim is Plaintiff’s mail appeal retaliation claim against Defendant

3

Sweeney-who was granted leave to file a supplemental exhaustion-related motion for summary

4

judgment (due on or before August 29, 2016). Because the issue of exhaustion is still outstanding and

5

must be resolved prior to discovery on the merits, the Court finds the interest of justice will be best

6

served by denying Plaintiff’s pending motions to compel, without prejudice, to renewal, if exhaustion

7

of the administrative remedies as to his retaliation claim against Defendant Sweeney is resolved in his

8

favor. In light of this ruling, Defendant’s third motion for an extension of time to respond to

9

Plaintiff’s motions to compel until after the issue of exhaustion is resolved shall be denied as rendered

10

moot.

11

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

Plaintiff’s motions to compel, filed January 15, 2016, and January 22, 2016 (ECF Nos.
40 & 44) are DENIED, without prejudice, to renewal at a later date if appropriate; and

13
2.

14

Defendant’s third motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s motions to
compel is DENIED as MOOT.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:

19

August 12, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2