Pickell v. Sands et al

Filing 30

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/12/2013 DENYING plaintiff's 29 Motion to Hold Discovery in abeyance until Summary Judgment has been heard and ruled upon by Court. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAN PICKELL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:12-cv-0373 TLN DAD PS

v.

ORDER

STEPHEN P. SANDS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Dan Pickell is proceeding pro se in the above entitled action. Accordingly, the

18

matter has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. '

19

636(b)(1).
On June 19, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 28), and a

20
21

motion to stay discovery pending the resolution of his motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No.

22

29.) Plaintiff set the hearing of both motions for August 23, 2013.
However, pursuant to the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order issued by the court on May

23
24

21, 2013, all discovery in this matter must be completed by August 16, 2013. (Doc. No. 25 at 3.)

25

In this regard, by the time the court hears plaintiff’s motion to stay discovery, the time for

26

discovery will have run and the court will be unable to grant plaintiff the relief he requests.

27

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to stay discovery will be denied without prejudice to renewal.

28

/////
1

1

Moreover, plaintiff is advised that typically summary judgment should only be entered

2

after an adequate time for discovery has passed. In this regard, it would be unusual for the court

3

to stay discovery to allow resolution of a motion for summary judgment.

4
5

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s June 19, 2013 motion to stay

6

discovery (Doc. No. 29) is denied without prejudice.

7

Dated: July 12, 2013

8
9
10
11

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.pro se\pickell0373.stay.den.docs

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