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.

John Allen Rainwater v. John Mcginniss

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 29, 2011

JOHN ALLEN RAINWATER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN MCGINNISS, SHERIFF, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is before the undersigned pursuant to both parties consent. On September 2, 2011, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff requested a long extension to file an opposition and was provided until December 12, 2011, to file his opposition. Plaintiff timely filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment and then on December 22, 2011, filed the instant motion to stay the motion for summary judgment in order to seek additional discovery. Doc. 92. Discovery closed on June 10, 2011. Plaintiff states that the court should grant his request, because the court had previously ignored his requests for additional discovery. Plaintiff is mistaken.

On April 29, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to extend discovery. On May 5, 2011, the court denied the request as premature and without prejudice, as plaintiff had not yet received responses from defendant but assumed they would be inadequate and he would need additional time. On June 9, 2011, plaintiff again requested to extend discovery. On June 23, 2011, this request was denied as plaintiff failed to present any specific reasons why discovery should be extended, instead merely stating that defendant did not provide the appropriate discovery.

In the instant motion, plaintiff states that in his opposition to summary judgment he requested to have discovery reopened, therefore it should be granted. Discovery ended six months ago and plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery and stay the motion for summary judgment is denied. Plaintiff has been disingenuous about the court record and the court finds plaintiff has shown bad faith in requesting a three month extension to file an opposition to summary judgment and then immediately request a stay. Plaintiff has filed many frivolous motions in this case and should he file additional motions to reopen discovery or additional frivolous motions, plaintiff will be sanctioned. If the court determines that more discovery is required after reviewing the motion for summary judgment, the court will order additional discovery.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to stay the motion for summary judgment and reopen discovery (Doc. 92) is denied.

20111229

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



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.