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)

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