Rodgers v. Munk et al

Filing 49

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James denying 39 Motion to Compel; denying 39 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 40 Motion ; denying 21 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 21 Motion to Compel; denying 22 Motion to Compel; granting 29 Motion for Protective Order (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service) (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C 13-2116 MEJ (pr)

RUSSELL DWAYNE RODGERS,

v.
GREG MUNKS, San Mateo County Sheriff,
et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO COMPEL; GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER; DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTIONS
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR TRIAL
Doc. Nos. 21, 22, 29, 39, 40

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

Plaintiff Russell Dwayne Rodgers filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaining of conditions at the San Mateo County jail, where he is incarcerated.
On June 28, 2013, the Court issued an Order of Partial Service, finding that Plaintiff’s due
process claim was not cognizable and that his Eighth Amendment claim for the denial of
hygiene supplies was cognizable. The Court ordered service of the Eighth Amendment claim
on Defendants Sheriff Munks, Lt. Kankel, Lt. Copeland and Sgt. Justice.
Plaintiff has filed two motions to compel discovery (doc. nos. 22, 39); and Defendants
have filed a motion for a protective order, precluding Plaintiff from taking the deposition of
Defendant Sheriff Munks (doc. no. 29). Also before the Court are Plaintiff’s third and fourth
motions for appointment of counsel (doc. nos. 21, 39) and Plaintiff’s motion for trial (doc.
no. 40).
On September 27, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff has already filed his opposition to the motion to

1
2
3
4

dismiss. Therefore, at this juncture, no discovery appears to be required. Accordingly, all
discovery is STAYED until the Court rules on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s
motions to compel are DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff re-filing such requests if the
stay is lifted. Defendants’ motion for a protective order is GRANTED.

5

The Court will rule on Defendants’ motion to dismiss by separate order. If, upon
6

review of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and Defendants’ reply
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

thereto it becomes apparent that the issues cannot be resolved without narrowly tailored
discovery, the Court will permit such discovery at that time and defer ruling on the motion
until such discovery is conducted.
For the reasons stated in the Court’s prior orders, Plaintiff’s renewed requests for
appointment of counsel are DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion to set trial is DENIED as premature.
This order terminates Docket Nos. 21, 22, 29, 39, and 40.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

DATED:

October 28, 2013

18

Maria-Elena James

19

United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2