Hill v. Bolivar County et al

Filing 159

ORDER denying 158 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 3/17/16. (ncb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
LATAUNA HILL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL THE HEIRS AT LAW AND WRONGFUL DEATH
BENEFICIARIES OF WILLIE LEE BINGHAM, DECEASED
v.

PLAINTIFF

CAUSE NO: 4:14cv86‐NBB‐JMV

BOLIVAR COUNTY, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion [158] to allow plaintiff to conduct
discovery to respond to certain defendants’ motion for summary judgment1 or in the alternative
for an extension of time to respond to those portions of these same defendants’ summary
judgment motion unrelated to qualified immunity. For the reasons stated herein, the motion will
be denied.

As for plaintiff’s request to take unspecified discovery for an unspecified period of
unspecified persons on unspecified issues, it is denied. Such a broad, vague and ambiguous
discovery request is without merit. Moreover, the Court notes that the relevant stay as to
discovery in this case did not prohibit discovery on all but qualified immunity issues as Plaintiff
contends. Rather, the stay prohibited discovery unrelated to any immunity issue.

1

The plaintiff’s motion addresses only the motion for summary judgment filed on
December 23, 2015 at docket number 118. It does not address the motion for summary judgment
appearing at docket number 127.

As concerns plaintiff’s alternative request that he be granted an extension of time in
which to respond to that portion of defendants’ dispositive motion related to issues other than
qualified immunity, the motion will similarly be denied, as plaintiff has failed to articulate any
good cause for such a further extension. As the docket reflects, this dispositive motion has been
pending since December 23, 2015. For the foregoing reasons, the motion is denied.
So ordered this 17th day of March, 2016.

/s/ Jane M. Virden
U. S. Magistrate Judge

2