ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF MOTION TO DISMISS Doc. 72
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR STATUS OF PENDING MOTIONS Doc. 74
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY, WITHOUT PREJUDICE Docs. 63, 64, 65, 66, 73
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR HEARING TO REVIEW PENDING MOTIONS Doc. 80
On May 26, 2010, Plaintiff Arthur T. Bussiere ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. On November 7, 2011, Defendant Lopez filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Doc. 62. On February 2, 2012, Defendant Lopez filed a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. Doc. 72. On February 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for status of pending motions. Doc. 74.*fn1 On March 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a hearing to review pending motions. Doc. 80. On March 5, 2012, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations, recommending to grant Defendant's motion to dismiss, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Doc. 81.
Given that resolution of Defendant's motion to dismiss may conclude this action and render any need for discovery unnecessary, Defendant's motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. Discovery is HEREBY ORDERED STAYED, pending the District Judge's ruling on the findings and recommendations.*fn2 Therefore, Plaintiff's pending discovery motions are DENIED, without prejudice.*fn3 Furthermore, a hearing is not necessary to review Plaintiff's pending motions, pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's motion to stay discovery is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff's pending discovery motions are DENIED, without prejudice;
3. Discovery is STAYED pending this Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss; and
4. Plaintiff's motion for hearing to review pending motions is DENIED.