Opinion
1:15-cv-00768-MJS (PC)
02-06-2017
LAKEITH L. MCCOY, Plaintiff, v. A. HOLGUIN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME;
(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY; AND
(3) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY MOTIONS
(ECF Nos. 40, 49, 50, 53)
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter proceeds on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint asserting, against nineteen Defendants, excessive force and failure to protect claims relating to a March 2015 assault.
Pursuant to the Court's most recent order, the discovery deadline in this case is February 17, 2017. (ECF No. 46.) Presently pending are two motions to compel filed by Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 40, 49.) For the reasons set forth below, these motions will be denied without prejudice to their renewal.
On January 9, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to revoke Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time to file his opposition to this motion. His request will be granted.
Also pending is Defendants' January 31, 2017, motion to stay discovery pending resolution of their motion to revoke Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status. Defendants seek this stay on the grounds that an order on Defendants' motion to revoke may obviate the need for further discovery, and that Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to respond to Defendants' motion to revoke suggests that he would be unable to focus on Defendants' responses to his discovery requests. Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants' motion to stay.
"The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). District courts also have "wide discretion in controlling discovery." Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.3d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). A district court "has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket." Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)).
Since resolution of Defendants' motion to revoke may indeed obviate the need for further discovery, the Court will grant Defendants' motion to stay.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motions to compel (ECF Nos. 40, 49) are DENIED without prejudice to their renewal;
2. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his opposition to Defendants' motion to revoke on or before February 20, 2017; and
3. Defendants' motion for a stay (ECF No. 53) is GRANTED. Discovery is stayed pending further Court order.IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2017
/s/ Michael J . Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE