Walton v. Hixson, et al

Filing 40

ORDER denying 27 Motion to compel discovery responses signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 05/23/11. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

RONALD E. WALTON

10

Plaintiff,

11

vs.

NO. CIV S-09-1246 GEB GGH (TEMP) P

12
S. HIXSON, et al.
13
Defendants.
14
15

ORDER
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

16

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a motion to compel defendants to respond to certain

17

discovery requests (Docket No. 27). The motion is premature. On February 23, 2011, the court

18

adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations that defendants’ motion to dismiss

19

be granted in part and denied in part. See Docket No. 34. On March 11, the court granted the

20

remaining defendants leave to file a supplemental motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 36. That

21

motion remains pending, and no defendant has yet filed an answer to the complaint. In this case,

22

the court will issue a scheduling order that defines the period for discovery requests and

23

responses such as the ones plaintiff now seeks to compel. Therefore, the motion to compel

24

defendants to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests will be denied without prejudice to

25

plaintiff’s renewal of the motion after the discovery period has begun and defendants have had

26

time in which to respond to plaintiff’s requests.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to compel discovery

2

responses (Docket No. 27) is denied without prejudice.

3

DATED: May 23, 2011

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
____________________________________
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4
5
6
7
8

GGH:hm
walt1246.ord

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2