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)

Download PDF
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

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?