IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 15, 2011
LEVERETT GRISSOM, PLAINTIFF,
GUERRERO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 27, 2010, defendants filed a motion to strike plaintiff's sur-reply to defendants' reply to plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss. However, plaintiff has not filed the sur-reply with the court. Accordingly, defendants' motion is denied.
On December 27, 2010, defendants filed a motion for protective order staying discovery pending resolution of the pending motion to dismiss. By separate findings and recommendations, this court recommended defendants' motion to dismiss be granted. Accordingly, defendants' motion for a protective order is granted. Discovery is stayed until the district court rules on the pending findings and recommendations. Defendants are relieved of their obligation to respond to pending discovery requests.
On January 24, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. In light of the pending findings and recommendations recommending that defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and this action be dismissed, plaintiff's motion to compel discovery will be denied without prejudice to its renewal should the district court decline to adopt the findings and recommendations issued herewith.
On February 1, 2011, plaintiff filed a document entitled "Request for Admissions." Plaintiff is advised that discovery requests shall not be filed with the court except when required by Local Rules 250.1, 250.2, 250.3 and 250.4. The request for admissions is disregarded.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' December 27, 2010 motion to strike (dkt. no. 31) is denied;
2. Defendants' December 27, 2010 motion for protective order (dkt. no. 32) is granted;
3. All discovery is stayed in this action pending further order of the court and defendants are relieved of their obligation to respond to pending discovery requests;
4. Plaintiff's January 24, 2011 motion to compel discovery (dkt No. 36) is denied without prejudice; and
5. Plaintiff's February 1, 2011 request for admissions (dkt. no. 38) is disregarded.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.