From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bussiere v. Cano

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 7, 2012
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00945-AWI-GBC (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00945-AWI-GBC (PC)

03-07-2012

ARTHUR T. BUSSIERE, Plaintiff, v. CANO, et al., Defendants.


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. 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.

This order serves as a status of Plaintiff's pending motions.

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. Therefore, Plaintiff's pending discovery motions are DENIED, without prejudice. Furthermore, a hearing is not necessary to review Plaintiff's pending motions, pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

Should the District Judge decline to adopt the findings and recommendations, the Court will lift this order staying discovery and reinstate the scheduling order or issue an amended scheduling order.

Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief and motion to amend his complaint remain pending on the Court's docket. Docs. 58, 71, 75.
--------

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Bussiere v. Cano

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 7, 2012
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00945-AWI-GBC (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012)
Case details for

Bussiere v. Cano

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR T. BUSSIERE, Plaintiff, v. CANO, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 7, 2012

Citations

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00945-AWI-GBC (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012)