Crowder v. Castillo et al

Filing 36

ORDER Temporarily Limiting Discovery to Issue of Exhaustion signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/10/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

TRISTAIN CROWDER,

11

Plaintiff,

12
v.

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00851-DAD-MJS (PC)
ORDER TEMPORARILY LIMITING
DISCOVERY TO ISSUE OF
EXHAUSTION

13
14

A. CASTILLO, et al.

(ECF Nos. 31, 32)

Defendants.

15
16
17
18

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

19 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s
20 Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Castillo, Gonzalez, Ibarra, and Diaz. (EC F
21 No. 15.) All Defendants have answered Plaintiff’s complaint.(ECF No. 23.)
22

On July 10, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground

23 that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison
24 Litigation Reform Act. (ECF No. 31.). Plaintiff has not yet responded to Defendants’
25 motion.
26

Defendants also filed a motion to limit discovery pending resolution of the

27 exhaustion motion so as to avoid undue burden or expense. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff did
28 not respond to Defendants’ motion to stay.

1

A district court has “wide discretion in controlling discovery,” Little v. City of

2 Seattle, 863 F.3d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988), and “broad discretion to stay proceedings as
3 an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706
4 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Under Federal
5 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), a court may, for good cause, issue an order staying or
6 limiting discovery to protect a party from undue burden or expense. Fed. R. Civ. P.
7 26(c)(1); see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.
8 1992) (holding that a court may modify its scheduling order upon a finding of good
9 cause).
10

It is most reasonable, efficient and economical for all parties, and prejudicial to

11 none, to limit discovery in this case to the issue of exhaustion until after the Court rules
12 on the exhaustion issue raised by Defendants’ summary judgment motion.
13

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 32) be

14 GRANTED. Discovery in this case is limited to the issue of exhaustion until thirty (30)
15 days after the District Judge assigned to the case decides Defendants’ pending
16 exhaustion motion.
17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 10, 2017

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2