Patten v. Brown

Filing 151

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 117 Motion ; denying 127 Motion ; granting 137 Motion to Stay Discovery; denying 142 Motion (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

JASON MCCORD PATTEN,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14
DR. C. STONE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 11-2057 LHK (PR)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY DISCOVERY; GRANTING
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION;
DENYING MOTIONS FOR
APPOINTMENT COUNSEL
(Doc. Nos. 117, 127, 137, 142.)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a second amended civil rights

18

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket No. 102.) Defendants filed a motion to

19

dismiss for failure to state a claim and for qualified immunity. (Docket No. 134.) Defendants

20

also filed a motion to stay discovery. (Docket No. 137.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to the

21

motion to stay discovery. (Docket No. 144.) In addition to opposing a stay of discovery,

22

Plaintiff also requests an extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to

23

dismiss. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he is unable to file an opposition due to Defendants’ failure

24

to comply with the Court’s order to engage in discovery. (Id.) Plaintiff has also filed a motion

25

to compel discovery. (Docket No. 117.)

26

//

27

//

28
Order Granting Motion to Stay Discovery; Granting Motion for Extension of Time; Denying Motions for
Appointment of Counsel
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.11\Patten057misc2.wpd

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 is

4

hereby GRANTED. (Docket No. 137.) Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is DENIED.

5

(Docket No. 117.)

6

In the interest of justice, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time in which to file an

7

opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to

8

Defendants’ motion to dismiss within twenty-eight (28) days of the filing date of this order.

9

Defendants’ shall file a reply within fourteen (14) days of the filing date of Plaintiff’s

10
11

opposition.
To the extent that Plaintiff requests the Court to appoint counsel in his motion for Court

12

appointed expert witness and his motion to inform the Court of Plaintiff’s circumstances, the

13

request is DENIED for want of changed circumstances. (Docket Nos. 127 and 142.)

14

This order terminates docket numbers 117, 127, 137 and 142.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

DATED:

4/9/13
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Granting Motion to Stay Discovery; Granting Motion for Extension of Time; Denying Motions for
Appointment of Counsel
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.11\Patten057misc2.wpd

2