McCoy v. Holguin et al

Filing 54

ORDER (1) GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time; (2) GRANTING Defendants' Motion to Stay; and (3) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Discovery Motions 40 , 49 , 50 , 53 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/6/17: Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' motion to revoke is due February 20, 2017. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

LAKEITH L. MCCOY,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17

1:15-cv-00768-MJS (PC)
ORDER
(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME;

v.
A. HOLGUIN, et al.,

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STAY; AND

Defendants.

(3) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY
MOTIONS

18
19
20

(ECF Nos. 40, 49, 50, 53)

21
22

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights

23

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second

24

Amended Complaint asserting, against nineteen Defendants, excessive force and failure

25

to protect claims relating to a March 2015 assault.

26
27

Pursuant to the Court’s most recent order, the discovery deadline in this case is
February 17, 2017. (ECF No. 46.) Presently pending are two motions to compel filed by

28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 40, 49.) For the reasons set forth below, these motions will be
denied without prejudice to their renewal.
On January 9, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma
pauperis status (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time to file his
opposition to this motion. His request will be granted.
Also pending is Defendants’ January 31, 2017, motion to stay discovery pending
resolution of their motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. Defendants seek
this stay on the grounds that an order on Defendants’ motion to revoke may obviate the
need for further discovery, and that Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to respond
to Defendants’ motion to revoke suggests that he would be unable to focus on
Defendants’ responses to his discovery requests. Plaintiff has not responded to
Defendants’ motion to stay.
“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of
litigation.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). District courts also have “wide discretion
in controlling discovery.” Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.3d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). A
district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to
control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v.
North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)).
Since resolution of Defendants’ motion to revoke may indeed obviate the need for
further discovery, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to stay.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motions to compel (ECF Nos. 40, 49) are DENIED without prejudice
to their renewal;
2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED. Plaintiff

25

shall file his opposition to Defendants’ motion to revoke on or before February

26

20, 2017; and

27
28
2

1

3. Defendants’ motion for a stay (ECF No. 53) is GRANTED. Discovery is stayed
pending further Court order.

2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
Dated:
6

February 6, 2017

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3