Opinion
Case No. 2:01-CV-00891 TC.
December 6, 2004
ORDER
Plaintiff, Patrick D. Mikesell, an inmate at the Utah State Prison, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 2003). Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the case was referred to the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). See 28id. 636. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to vacate the order staying discovery, Plaintiff's motion to recuse the assigned magistrate judge, and Plaintiff's motion for additional time to respond to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment.
On July 19, 2004, the Court stayed these proceedings and ordered Defendants to file a Martinez report. While the stay remained in effect Plaintiff sent numerous interrogatories and requests for production of documents to Defendants in violation of the Court ordered stay. Defendants filed their Martinez report on October 18, 2004, in conjunction with a Motion for Summary Judgment. Several days later Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Discovery in response to Plaintiff's continued efforts to proceed with discovery. The Court summarily granted Defendants' motion to stay discovery pending review of the Martinez report.
In Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978), the Tenth Circuit approved the practice of the district court to order the prison administration to prepare a report to be included in the pleadings in cases where a prisoner has filed suit alleging a constitutional violation.
Plaintiff now moves the Court to lift the stay of discovery to allow him to respond to Defendants' summary judgment motion. Defendants object, asserting that Plaintiff's discovery requests are largely irrelevant to the motion for summary judgment, or are otherwise flawed. Thus, Defendants urge the Court to leave the stay in effect pending a ruling on their summary judgment motion.
Having reviewed Defendants' Martinez report and Motion for Summary Judgment, as well as Plaintiff's discovery requests, the Court finds that limited discovery may be necessary to allow Plaintiff adequate opportunity to respond to Defendants' motion. However, the Court also notes that many of Plaintiff's prior discovery requests are now redundant in light of the substantial information contained in the Martinez report, while others are either irrelevant to the summary judgment motion or are otherwise flawed. Thus, Plaintiff must reformulate his discovery requests and resubmit them to Defendants. Defendants may object to any request that is not specifically tailored to meet Defendants' summary judgment motion, or otherwise fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff should bear in mind that abuse of discovery may result in the Court making its summary judgment ruling without allowing him further opportunity to respond.
The Court now turns to Plaintiff's motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Nuffer. The only ground for Plaintiff's motion appears to be that the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery without allowing Plaintiff an opportunity to object. As previously noted, Plaintiff's attempts to conduct discovery were in violation of this courts previous stay order. By summarily granting Defendants' motion the Court merely reiterated for Plaintiff's benefit the fact that the previous stay remained in effect. Plaintiff's objection was obviously irrelevant to that determination. Thus, the Court finds no grounds to recuse the assigned magistrate judge from this case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) the stay in this case is hereby lifted;
(2) Plaintiff has fifteen days to revise his discovery requests in compliance with this order and resubmit them to Defendants;
(3) Defendants may object or otherwise respond to the discovery within the time permitted in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
(4) Plaintiff's motion to recuse the magistrate judge in this case is denied; and,
(5) Plaintiff shall have sixty days from this order to respond to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment.