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.

Dennis Walker v. Matthew Cate

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


June 5, 2012

DENNIS WALKER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MATTHEW CATE, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requested a 30 day extension, but did not specify what the extension concerned. Defendant recently filed a reply to plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss, so that motion is fully briefed and no further briefing is allowed. Defendant also filed a motion for a protective order, as it appears that plaintiff served discovery requests on defendant, but a motion to dismiss is pending. The undersigned has reviewed the motion to dismiss. Because the motion, insofar as it is based upon failure to state a claim, has facial merit, the undersigned will postpone discovery until such time as the motion to dismiss is adjudicated. Therefore, defendants' motion for protective order will be granted and defendant need not respond to discovery requests at this time.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for an extension (Doc. 17) is denied; and

2. Defendant's motion for a protective order (Doc. 18) is granted and defendant need not respond to discovery requests at this time. The parties are not permitted to conduct discovery until a Scheduling Order is issued.

20120605

© 1992-2012 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.