Morgan v. Mays et al

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 24 Motion to Stay, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 02/14/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 ANTHONY M. MORGAN, 10 11 12 13 Plaintiff, v. MARTHA MAYS, Defendant. 14 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:16-cv-00149-BAM (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY (ECF No. 24) Plaintiff Anthony M. Morgan (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 16 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case currently 17 proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Mays for delay of medical treatment in violation 18 of the Eighth Amendment. 19 Currently, before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to stay this action, filed January 20, 20 2017. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff requesting that the Court put this matter on hiatus, stating he is not 21 ready for the interrogatories he has been served with, that he will soon be on parole, and that he 22 needs some time to find an attorney. Defendant Mays has not responded to the motion within the 23 time permitted for a response. Local Rule 230(l). 24 “A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order. . 25 . [and] [t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from 26 annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 27 The Court enjoys “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 28 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1989). 1 1 Plaintiff has not presented good cause for a protective order limiting or staying discovery 2 at this time. Neither Plaintiff’s parole status nor his attempts to gain representation by counsel 3 absolve him from meeting his obligations in this action, including that he must properly respond 4 to discovery requests. Plaintiff is not precluded from seeking an appropriate and reasonable 5 extension of time for meeting the deadlines in the discovery and scheduling order issued, upon a 6 showing of good cause. 7 8 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to stay, filed on January 20, 2017 (ECF No. 24) is DENIED. 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara February 14, 2017 12 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?