Reyes v. Kirkland et al

Filing 59

ORDER (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDUARDO REYES, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD KIRKLAND, warden; et al., Defendants. /

No. C 08-813 SI (pr) ORDER

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in which they argued, among other things, that they were entitled to qualified immunity. After defendants filed their motion, plaintiff filed a "motion for request for production of documents," and a "motion for continuance; renewal of motion to appoint counsel." Defendants opposed the motions, arguing that discovery should be stayed pending resolution of their motion for summary judgment because they raised a qualified immunity defense in it. The U.S. Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that a district court should stay discovery until the threshold question of qualified immunity is settled. See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 646 n.6 (1987); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). In light of the fact that defendants' motion for summary judgment raises a qualified immunity defense, plaintiff's motion for discovery and motion for continuance to obtain discovery are DENIED. (Docket # 51, # 52.) Discovery is now

STAYED pending resolution of the motion for summary judgment or other court order.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The court notes that, as a practical matter, plaintiff did receive the 30-day continuance he requested because he did not file his opposition to the motion for summary judgment until a month after the deadline. Plaintiff's opposition to the motion for summary judgment is deemed timely filed, as is defendants' reply. Plaintiff's renewed motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED for the same reasons the court denied his original motion for appointment of counsel. (Docket # 51.) The motion for summary judgment is now fully briefed and remains under submission. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 3, 2010 _______________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

2