Garces v. Pickett et al

Filing 79

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/13/19 DENYING plaintiff's 77 motion to Compel without prejudice. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

No. 2:17-cv-0319 JAM AC P

ORDER

J. PICKETT, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

18

§ 1983, has filed a motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 77) and an opposition to defendants’

19

motion for a protective order (ECF No. 78).

20

On May 9, 2019, defendants filed a motion for protective order seeking to stay discovery

21

pending resolution of their concurrently filed motion for judgment on the pleadings. ECF No. 67.

22

The motion was granted. ECF No. 68. The deadlines for responding to any discovery requests

23

that had already been served were stayed, while all other deadlines in the April 9, 2019 discovery

24

and scheduling order were vacated. Id. If necessary, after defendants’ motion for judgment on

25

the pleadings has been resolved, the court will set deadlines for the parties to respond to any

26

discovery requests that were served prior to the stay, to serve additional discovery, and to file

27

motions to compel. Plaintiff’s instant motion to compel will therefore be denied without

28

prejudice to renewal once new discovery deadlines have been set.
1

1

With respect to plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for protective order, the motion has

2

already been granted, and nothing in the opposition warrants reconsideration of that order. To the

3

extent it appears that plaintiff is arguing that he requires discovery to respond to defendants’

4

motion for judgment on the pleadings, he has failed to establish that such a need exists. In ruling

5

on a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), the court

6

cannot consider matters outside the pleadings without treating the motion as one for summary

7

judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). Accordingly, the

8

court does not intend to consider any evidence outside of the complaint when considering

9

defendants’ motion. Plaintiff is reminded that he has until July 1, 2019, to respond to defendants’

10

motion for judgment on the pleadings and that failure to do so will result in a recommendation

11

that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 77)

13

is denied without prejudice.

14

DATED: June 13, 2019

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