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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?