White v. Smyers et al

Filing 73

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/20/14 ordering plaintiff's 10/14/14 motions for a stay of the proceedings 70 , 71 are denied. Plaintiff is granted 60 days from the date of this order in which to file an opposition to th e motion for protective order. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for a 21 days extension of time to oppose the motion for a protective order 72 is denied as moot. Plaintiff is ordered to file a status report 60 days from the date of this order notifying the court of whether or not his medical condition enables him to proceed with this lawsuit. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WALTER HOWARD WHITE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:12-cv-2868 MCE AC P

v.

ORDER

D. SMYERS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff has filed (1) a motion to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of plaintiff’s

18

upcoming surgery (ECF No. 70); (2) a motion to stay the proceedings pending “compliance with

19

plaintiff’s rights” (ECF No. 71); and (3) a request for a 21-day extension of time to file an

20

opposition to the defendants’ motion for a protective order (ECF No. 72). The same day plaintiff

21

filed his motions, the court issued an order extending discovery by 60 days (ECF No. 68), in

22

response to plaintiff’s earlier motion.
The court will not stay the proceedings, as no good cause has been shown. However, the

23
24

court’s prior extension of discovery by 60 days remains in effect, and plaintiff’s deadline for

25

serving and filing an opposition to defendants’ motion for a protective order will also be

26

extended. However, plaintiff will be required to report the status of his ability to continue with

27

this suit at the expiration of the 60-day period.

28

////

1

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s October 14, 2014 motions for a stay of the proceedings (ECF Nos. 70 & 71),

3

are DENIED.

4

2. Plaintiff is granted 60 days from the date of this order in which to file an opposition to

5

the motion for protective order. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for a 21-day extension of time to

6

oppose the motion for a protective order (ECF No. 72) is DENIED as moot;

7

3. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a status report 60 days from the date of this order

8

notifying the court of whether or not his medical condition enables him to proceed with this

9

lawsuit.

10

DATED: October 20, 2014

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