Riley v. Tallerico et al

Filing 72

ORDER Denying 70 Motion to Stay of Proceedings, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 5/9/18. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

SHANNON RILEY,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

v.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01189-AWI-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY OF
PROCEEDINGS
(ECF NO. 70)

TALLERICO and YERRY,
Defendants.

17
18
19

Shannon Riley (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

20

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed a

21

motion for stay of proceedings. (ECF No. 70).

22
23

Plaintiff seeks a stay of the proceedings because Defendants have allegedly not adequately
responded to his discovery requests, and he needs to file a motion to compel.

24

Plaintiff’s request will be denied. The Court already built time in the schedule for the

25

resolution of discovery disputes. The deadline to file motions to compel is July 23, 2018, and the

26

Court will hold a conference at which motions to compel will be discussed on August 20, 2018.

27

(ECF No. 59, p. 4). Thus, if Plaintiff is already working on his motion to compel, as it appears

28

that he is, his motion will be filed well before the deadline built into the current schedule.
1

1

Accordingly, there is no need to stay these proceedings.

2

As to defendant Yerry’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 69), if Plaintiff needs

3

additional time to collect evidence to adequately oppose the motion, Plaintiff may request an

4

extension of time to file his opposition on the basis that he is still seeking discovery related to that

5

motion.

6
7

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for stay of
proceedings is DENIED.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 9, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2