Nuriddin v. Estrella et al

Filing 44

ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 41 Motion to Stay Discovery, as to the Merits only until further order of the Court, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 05/12/2015. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MUHAMMAD NURIDDIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
ESTRELLA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01448-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO STAY DISCOVERY
[ECF No. 41]

Plaintiff Muhammad Nuriddin is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17
18

action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Bivens actions and actions

19

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “are identical save for the replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a

20

federal actor under Bivens.” Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991).
This action is proceeding against Defendants Rios, Bell, Miller, and Does 1-2 for retaliation in

21
22

violation of the First Amendment.1
On March 19, 2015, Defendant Rios filed a motion for summary judgment for failure to

23
24

exhaust the administrative remedies.

25

///

26

///

27
28

1

Defendant Rios is the only defendant who has been served with process.

1

1

On April 10, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to stay discovery pending the motion for

2

summary judgment relating to exhaustion of the administrative remedies. Plaintiff did not file an

3

opposition, and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

4

The Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery. Dichter-Mad Family Partners,

5

LLP v. U.S., 709 F.3d 749, 751 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 117 (2013); Hunt

6

v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406

7

F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Pursuant to Rule

8

26(c)(1), the Court may, for good cause, issue a protective order forbidding or limiting discovery. The

9

avoidance of undue burden or expense is grounds for the issuance of a protective order, Fed. R. Civ. P.

10

26(c), and a stay of discovery pending resolution of potentially dispositive issues furthers the goal of

11

efficiency for the courts and the litigants, Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)

12

(stay of discovery pending resolution of immunity issue). The propriety of delaying discovery on the

13

merits of the plaintiff’s claims pending resolution of an exhaustion motion was explicitly recognized

14

by the Ninth Circuit. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), cert. denied,

15

135 S.Ct. 403 (2014); see also Gibbs v. Carson, No. C-13-0860 THE (PR), 2014 WL 172187, at *2-3

16

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014).

17

The failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, and Defendant is entitled to judgment on

18

Plaintiff’s claim against him if the Court determines the claim is unexhausted. Albino, 747 F.3d at

19

1166. Thus, the pending exhaustion motion has the potential to bring final resolution to this action,

20

obviating the need for merits-based discovery. Gibbs, 2014 WL 172187, at *3. In Albino, the Ninth

21

Circuit recognized that “[e]xhaustion should be decided, if feasible, before reaching the merits of a

22

prisoner’s claims,” and “discovery directed to the merits of the suit” should be left until later. Albino,

23

747 F.3d at 1170. To the extent that the non-moving party needs specific discovery to address issues

24

raised in a dispositive motion, the non-moving party may seek redress by Federal Rule of Civil

25

Procedure 56(d). Albino, 747 F.3d at 1170-71; Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1115 n.7 (9th Cir.

26

2003) (overruled on other grounds by Albino, 747 F.3d at 1168-69). Except for discovery related to

27

whether Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies, the parties are precluded from

28

responding to any discovery requests or serving any discovery requests until the stay is lifted. If the
2

1

parties have been served with discovery requests that do not relate to Plaintiff’s exhaustion of

2

administrative remedies, they shall retain the discovery for later consideration, if and until the stay has

3

been lifted.

4

Accordingly, good cause having been shown, Defendant’s motion to stay discovery relating to

5

the merits of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim is GRANTED and discovery is STAYED, as to the merits

6

only until further order of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Albino, 747 F.3d at 1170-71. Discovery is

7

not stayed to the extent discovery is needed for the limited issue related to the defendants’ motion for

8

summary judgment for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated:

12

May 12, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3