Hooks v. Bannister et al

Filing 161

ORDER denying as moot 153 motion seeking reinstatement of discovery and denying 155 petition for writ of mandate. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 6/10/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13

JERRY HOOKS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BRUCE BANNISTER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________)

3:12-cv-00682-RCJ-WGC
ORDER
re: Docs. # 153 and # 155

14
15

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Court’s Reinstatement Order Staying Doc. # 134

16

Discovery Scheduling.” (Doc. # 153.1) Defendants have responded (Doc. # 157) and Plaintiff has replied

17

(Doc. # 160.) Also before the court is Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandate and Prohibition. (Doc.

18

# 155.) Defendants have responded (Doc. # 159) and Plaintiff has replied. (Doc. # 160).

19

Doc. # 153 Motion for Reinstatement Order

20

Despite its convoluted title, Plaintiff’s motion basically seeks to reopen discovery. The history

21

of this matter reflects that this case has been the subject of some 29 motions filed by Plaintiff on a range

22

of subjects including, but not limited to, Plaintiff’s motions for extensions of time, to defer time or set

23

aside extension granted (#10, #33, #56, #73, #74, #82, #84, #90); for preliminary injunction (#15); for

24

temporary restraining order (#16); for extension of copy work credit limit (#26, #63); for appointment

25

of counsel (#17, #59); for copies of court documents (#27, #30); to amend the complaint (#42); to

26

alter/amend the screening order (#47, #51); to amend the motion to alter/amend the screening order

27

(#48).

28
1

Refers to court’s docket number.

1

On June 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed his motion to defer responding to Defendants' dispositive motion

2

to conduct discovery (Doc. # 84). The court conducted a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion on June 18, 2014.

3

The court found that Plaintiff's motions for extension of time to undertake discovery did not satisfy Fed.

4

R. Civ. P. 56(d) in that the motion did not specifically identify the relevant discovery Plaintiff sought

5

to undertake, nor did Plaintiff explain how that discovery, if permitted, might preclude the entry of

6

summary judgment. Resolution of Defendants' motion for summary judgment, however, was stayed

7

until the court had reviewed the proposed discovery Plaintiff wanted to undertake. Plaintiff was directed

8

to file a memorandum regarding the proposed "targeted" discovery specifically tailored to the issues

9

presented by Defendants' motion for summary judgment, no later than Friday, July 11, 2014. (Doc# 89

10

at 2.)

11

On June 26, 2014, Plaintiff sought additional time to outline his proposed discovery #90). The

12

court denied Plaintiff's request and directed him to comply with the July 11, 2014, deadline (#92). The

13

court issued a subsequent order on December 2, 2014, defining the targeted discovery which Plaintiff

14

would be allowed to conduct and directed Plaintiff to submit the actual discovery he proposed to serve

15

on the Defendant within thirty days of the order (#130). Rather than providing the proposed discovery

16

as ordered, Plaintiff instead filed a “Notice: Request for Leave to Meet and Confer for Discovery

17

Scheduling” (#134) on January 20, 2015. The court denied Plaintiff’s request (#130) because Plaintiff

18

failed to follow the orders of this court (Docs. ## 80, 89 and 130) and held the targeted discovery issue

19

and any extension to complete discovery was moot. The court lifted the stay of briefing of Defendants’

20

motion for summary judgment and set a March 27, 2015 deadline for Plaintiff to respond to the

21

dispositive motion. (Doc. # 136.)

22

Inasmuch as discovery is closed and the dispositive motions have been fully briefed, Plaintiff’s

23

motion seeking reinstatement of discovery (Doc. #153) is DENIED AS MOOT.

24

Doc. # 155 Petition for Writ of Mandate and Prohibition

25

Plaintiff’s petition for Writ of Mandate and Prohibition, which the court interprets as being a

26

motion to strike (as opposed to an extraordinary writ), attacks the veracity of the Declaration of

27

Associate Warden Michael Fletcher which was attached to the Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s Notice

28

and Request for Leave to Meet and Confer (Doc. # 134). Plaintiff claims he was denied access to the
2

1

court system, the law library and other legal resources which prevented him from serving discovery on

2

the Defendants. However this assertion is not supported by the record in this matter. As noted above,

3

Plaintiff failed to follow the orders of this court concerning the issue of targeted discovery and the

4

deadline for any discovery was closed. The court also sees no legitimate basis to strike the Fletcher

5

declaration.

6

Plaintiff’s petition for a writ of mandate (Doc. # 155) is DENIED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: June 10, 2015

9

________________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3