The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter proceeds on plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. 47). Defendants Duckett, Morris, Nessenson, Stogsdill, Sturges, Tilton and Williams filed an answer (Doc. 57) on March 5, 2008. Defendants Woodford, Hickman, Terhune, Gomez, Tristan and Ling filed an answer (Doc. 97) on April 2, 2009. The parties were ordered to file status reports to address the status of this case. The status reports have been filed, and both sides indicate there is additional discovery to be completed.
Plaintiff requests 90 days to complete his discovery. Defendants also request additional time to complete discovery, especially related to the claims raised in the amended complaint. The defendants request an additional 60 days to complete the necessary discovery. In addition, counsel indicates a plan to move for judgment on the pleadings on behalf of a number of defendants, and a request to stay discovery relating to the moving defendants during the pendency of the motion.
Therefore, the court will allow discovery to continue at this time. However, the parties are cautioned that once the anticipated motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed and/or ruled on, the court expects most of the discovery to be completed. The parties are encouraged to complete their discovery without delay, as only a limited time will be allowed following the anticipated motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Discovery may continue until otherwise ordered by the court;
2. Defendants' request to depose plaintiff concerning the allegations in his amended complaint is granted;
3. Any motion for judgment on the pleadings, and accompanying request to suspend discovery, is to be filed within 30 days; and
4. If no motion for judgment on the pleadings, or request to suspend discovery, is filed within the time specified in this order, the court will issue a scheduling order based on the parties' status reports.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...