Goolsby v. Cate

Full title: THOMAS GOOLSBY, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 10, 2015

1:13-cv-00119-AWI-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2015)

Opinion

1:13-cv-00119-AWI-GSA-PC

09-10-2015

THOMAS GOOLSBY, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.

Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR STAY
(ECF No. 50.)
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR COURT TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF VEXATIOUS LITIGANT NINETY-DAY DEADINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION

I. BACKGROUND

Thomas Goolsby ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on January 25, 2013. (Doc. 1.) The case now proceeds with the Second Amended Complaint filed on June 6, 2014, on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Warden Kimberly Holland, Warden Michael Stainer, and Captain J. Lundy, for denial of adequate outdoor exercise time; and defendants Captain J. Lundy, Sergeant S. Foster, Plumlee (Maintenance Supervisor), Warden Kimberly Holland, Correctional Officer Jordon, and Correctional Officer Uribe, for deliberate indifference to unsanitary and unsafe conditions.¹ (ECF No. 34.)

1 On March 24, 2015, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from this action, for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim under § 1983. (ECF No. 36.) --------

This case is now in the discovery phase, pursuant to the court's scheduling order issued on July 24, 2015. (ECF No. 49.)

On July 23, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for the court to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. (ECF No. 46.) On August 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay Defendants' motion. (ECF No. 50.) Defendants have not filed an opposition.

II. MOTION FOR STAY

Plaintiff requests the court to stay Defendants' motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, to allow Plaintiff time to conduct discovery to oppose the motion. The court does not lightly stay litigation, due to the possibility of prejudice to defendants, and here, a stay of the proceedings is not Plaintiff's only remedy. In the alternative, good cause appearing, Plaintiff shall be granted a ninety-day extension of time to file his opposition to Defendants' motion. If Plaintiff requires additional time, he should file a motion for extension of time before the expiration of the ninety-day deadline.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for stay, filed on August 7, 2015, is DENIED; and

2. Good cause appearing, Plaintiff is GRANTED an extension of time until ninety days from the date of service of this order, in which to file his opposition to Defendants' motion for the court to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10 , 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE