Sahibi v. Gonzales. et al.

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY WITHOUT PREJUDICE 38 AND GRANTING THE PARTIES' REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESOND TO DISCOVERY 39 signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/15/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

OUSSAMA SAHIBI,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
GONZALES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

No. 1:15-cv-01581 LJO DLB PC
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
(Document 38)
ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES’
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO
RESOND TO DISCOVERY
(Documents 38 and 39)

17
18
19

Plaintiff Oussama Sahibi (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate in the custody of the California

20

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), is proceeding pro se and in forma

21

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on

22

October 16, 2015, and it proceeds on the following claims: (1) violation of the Eighth

23

Amendment against Defendants Gonzales, Smith, Cope, Lozano and Stan; and (2) violation of the

24

Fourteenth Amendment against Defendant Crounse.

25

The Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on June 6, 2016.

26

Defendants Gonzales, Smith, Cope, Lozano and Stan filed a motion for judgment on the

27

pleadings on July 1, 2016, which is currently pending. The motion is based on Defendants’

28

///
1

1

contention that Plaintiff’s excessive force claim is barred by Heck v. Humphry, 512 U.S. 477

2

(1994).

3

On July 28, 2016, Defendants Gonzales, Smith, Cope, Lozano and Stan filed a motion to

4

stay discovery, or in the alternative, limit discovery to exhaustion. Defendant Crounse joined in

5

the motion on July 29, 2016.

6

Defendants move to stay discovery, or limit discovery to exhaustion, because they intend

7

to file a motion challenging the exhaustion of Plaintiff’s claims. While they may be entitled to a

8

stay at that time, the Court will not stay discovery prior to the filing of an exhaustion challenge.

9

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

10

Both Plaintiff and Defendants have requested additional time to respond to discovery

11

requests. As the Court has not stayed discovery, the Court will GRANT the parties an additional

12

forty-five days from the date of service of this order to respond to discovery.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

August 15, 2016

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2