Furnace v. Knuckles et al

Filing 59

ORDER DENYING 53 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL; DENYING 56 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; GRANTING 50 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY; GRANTING 28 DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 16, 2011. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SGT. K KNUCKLES, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
_______________________________ )
EDWARD TERRAN FURNACE,

15

No. C 09-6075 MMC (PR)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL; DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS; GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY
DISCOVERY; GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT
(Docket Nos. 28, 50, 53, 56)

16
17
18

On December 30, 2009, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at Corcoran State

19

Prison and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

20

§ 1983. On April 26, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment

21

(hereafter, “motion for summary judgment”). Now before the Court are four separate

22

motions concerning the procedures applicable to defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

23

On April 21, 2011, defendants filed an administrative motion to extend the page limit

24

for their memorandum in support of their motion summary judgment. On April 26, 2011,

25

defendants moved to stay discovery pending the Court’s ruling on their motion for summary

26

judgment, in light of their assertion therein that they are entitled to qualified immunity. On

27

April 29, 2011, plaintiff moved to compel discovery and also moved for sanctions based on

28

defendants’ refusal to respond to discovery.

1

As a general rule, a district court should stay discovery until the issue of qualified

2

immunity is resolved. See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); Harlow v.

3

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Accordingly, defendants’ motion to stay discovery

4

until the Court has ruled on the issue of qualified immunity, as raised in defendants’ motion

5

for summary judgment, is hereby GRANTED. (Docket No. 50.)

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

In light of the above ruling, plaintiff’s motion to compel is hereby DENIED (Docket
No. 53) and plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is hereby DENIED (Docket No. 56).
Lastly, good cause having been shown, defendants’ administrative motion to extend
the page limit is hereby GRANTED (Docket No. 28) and the 37-page memorandum (Docket
No. 31) is accepted for filing.

11

This order terminates Docket Nos. 28, 50, 53, and 56.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

DATED: May 16, 2011
_________________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

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