MORGAN v. MAYS

No. 1:16-cv-00149-BAM (PC).

ANTHONY M. MORGAN, Plaintiff, v. MARTHA MAYS, Defendant.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Anthony M. Morgan, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Martha Mays, Defendant, represented by Catherine Woodbridge , Attorney General's Office of the State of California.


ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY

(ECF No. 24)

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Anthony M. Morgan ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case currently proceeds on Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Mays for delay of medical treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Currently, before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to stay this action, filed January 20, 2017. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff requesting that the Court put this matter on hiatus, stating he is not ready for the interrogatories he has been served with, that he will soon be on parole, and that he needs some time to find an attorney. Defendant Mays has not responded to the motion within the time permitted for a response. Local Rule 230(l).

"A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order . . . [and] [t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The Court enjoys "wide discretion in controlling discovery." Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1989).

Plaintiff has not presented good cause for a protective order limiting or staying discovery at this time. Neither Plaintiff's parole status nor his attempts to gain representation by counsel absolve him from meeting his obligations in this action, including that he must properly respond to discovery requests. Plaintiff is not precluded from seeking an appropriate and reasonable extension of time for meeting the deadlines in the discovery and scheduling order issued, upon a showing of good cause.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to stay, filed on January 20, 2017 (ECF No. 24) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases