Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sanchez v. Stancliff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 10, 2009

ANTHONY JOSEPH SANCHEZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
STANCLIFF, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL; FOR THIRTY DAY STAY ON ALL PROCEEDINGS; FOR THIRTY DAY EXTENSION TO DISCOVERY CUT-OFF; FOR SUBPOENA'S FOR DOCUMENTS; and DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AS MOOT (Docs. 65, 72, 75, 76, & 78)

Plaintiff Anthony Joseph Sanchez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Various discovery motions are pending before the Court.

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 22.) On August 19, 2008, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order establishing a deadline of April 15, 2009, for the parties to conduct discovery, including motions to compel. (Doc. 41.)

On February 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendants to Disclose and Produce Items Previously Requested, which Defendants opposed. (Docs. 65, 73.) On March 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Thirty Day Stay on all Proceedings, which was not opposed. (Doc. 72.) On April 14, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Discovery, which Plaintiff did not oppose, to which Defendants filed a reply. (Docs. 75, 83.) On April 16, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Thirty Day Extension of Discovery Cut-off Date, which Defendants opposed. (Docs. 76, 81.) On April 22, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Subpoena's for Documents, which Defendants opposed. (Docs. 78, 82.)

On March 27, 2009, Defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. (Doc. 74.) On June 15, 2009, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on a duplicate of the evidence submitted in their amended motion to dismiss. (Doc. 84.) None of the above discovery motions had been ruled on such that the Court reviewed all of the above motions, and exhibits thereto in arriving at the findings and recommendation on both Defendants' amended motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment.*fn1 (Docs. 74, 84.) The findings and recommendations on Defendants' amended motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment concurrently issued with this order recommends that judgment be entered for the Defendants and against Plaintiff. In light of the findings and recommendations on Defendants' amended motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motions to Compel (Doc. 65); Motion for Thirty Day Stay on All Proceedings (Doc. 72); Motion for Thirty Day Extension to Discovery Cut-off (Doc. 76); Motion for Subpoena's for Documents (Doc. 78); and Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 75) as the issues in these motions are moot.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants to Disclose and Produce Items Previously Requested filed on February 23, 2009; Plaintiff's Motion for Thirty Day Stay on all Proceedings filed on March 11, 2009; Defendants Motion to Compel Discovery filed on April 14, 2009; Plaintiff's Motion for Thirty Day Extension of Discovery Cut-off Date filed on April 16, 2009; and Plaintiff's Motion for Subpoena's for Documents filed on April 22, 2009 are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.