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.

Edward Thomas v. M. Beutler

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


November 26, 2012

EDWARD THOMAS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
M. BEUTLER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Two discovery motions are pending. On October 29, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion requesting sanctions, a court order compelling defendants' to comply with the court's previous order of October 10, 2012, and an extension of time to serve a subpoena. (Dkt. No. 69.) On November 13, 2012, plaintiff filed a "secondary motion for court order," seeking the same relief. (Dkt. No. 74.) Defendants have opposed the motions. (Dkt. Nos. 73, 75.)

On November 7, 2012, findings and recommendations issued recommending that plaintiff's IFP status be revoked and that he be required to pay the filing fee in full or face dismissal of his case. (Dkt. No. 72.) At the same time, all discovery in this case was stayed, including the additional discovery that was ordered in the court's order of October 10, 2012. Accordingly, plaintiff's request for an extension of time to serve a subpoena and for an order compelling defendants to comply with the court's October 10, 2012 order will be denied. Plaintiff's "secondary motion" requesting the same relief will also be denied for the same reason.

In the court's October 10, 2012 order, defendants were ordered to provide plaintiff with the correct address to send a subpoena to the Internal Affairs Office within seven days. (Dkt. No. 65.) Due to an oversight, defense counsel inadvertently did not provide the address to plaintiff until November 1, 2012. Because all discovery has been stayed in this case, this delay did not prejudice plaintiff. The court finds that an award of sanctions under these circumstances would be unjust. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(2)(c).

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff's motion for sanctions, court order, and an extension of time (Dkt. No. 69) and secondary motion for court order (Dkt. No. 74) are DENIED.

20121126

© 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.