Crisp v. Wasco State Prison

Filing 42

ORDER MODIFYING Scheduling Order Staying Action other than that Related to the Issue of Exhaustion and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/14/2016. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

Case No. 1:13-cv-01899-AWI-SKO (PC)
OBIE L. CRISP, III,
Plaintiff,

10
v.

11
12

ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER
STAYING ACTION OTHER THAN THAT
RELATED TO THE ISSUE OF EXHAUSTION
AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,
(Doc. 35)
Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17

I.

Background
Plaintiff, Obie Lee Crisp, III, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

18

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on November

19

22, 2013 (Doc. 1) and is proceeding on claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical

20

needs and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act

21

(“RA”).

22

On December 28, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on

23

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. 34.)

24

Concurrently therewith, Defendants file a motion for protective order seeking to stay all

25
26
27
28

discovery in this action other than that related to Plaintiff’s exhaustion efforts. (Doc. 35.) While
the time for Plaintiff to file an opposition has not yet lapsed, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by
the consideration of Defendants’ motion since Plaintiff may engage in discovery on the issue of
exhaustion, and full discovery will be re-opened and a new Discovery and Scheduling Order will

1

1

issue if the exhaustion issue is not dispositive.

2

II.

3

Modification of Scheduling Order
A party seeking leave of court to amend the schedule of a case must satisfy Federal Rule

4

of Civil Procedure1 16(b)'s “good cause” standard. The good cause standard of Rule 16(b)

5

focuses primarily on the diligence of the moving party, id., and the reasons for seeking

6

modification, C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th

7

Cir.2011). If the party seeking to amend the scheduling order fails to show due diligence, the

8

inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern

9

California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).
Here, Defendants have exercised due diligence. The Discovery and Scheduling Order

10
11

issued in this case on December 18, 2015. (Doc. 30.) On December 28, 2015, Defendants file

12

their motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s asserted failure to exhaust administrative

13

remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. 34.) That same date, Defendants filed their motion for

14

protective order seeking to stay all discovery in this action other than that related to Plaintiff’s

15
16

exhaustion efforts. (Doc. 35.)
III.

A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings, or any portion thereof.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Stay of Proceedings

This power to stay is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of
the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”
Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Gold v. Johns–Manville Sales
Corp., 723 F.2d 1068, 1077 (3d Cir.1983) (holding that the power to stay proceedings comes
from the power of every court to manage the cases on its docket and to ensure a fair and efficient
adjudication of the matter at hand). This is best accomplished by the “exercise of judgment,
which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–

24
55. In determining whether a stay is warranted, courts consider the potential prejudice to the non25
moving party; the hardship or inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and the
26
judicial resources that would be saved by simplifying the case or avoiding duplicative litigation if
27
1

28

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will hereinafter be referred to as ARule *.@ Any reference to other statutory
authorities shall so indicate.

2

1

the case before the court is stayed. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.1962). The

2

Ninth Circuit “has sustained or authorized in principle Landis stays on several occasions.”

3

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir.2005).
If Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s exhaustion efforts is granted,

4
5

a large portion of this case will be dismissed. As such, it is reasonable to stay discovery other

6

than that related to Plaintiff’s exhaustion efforts until Defendants motion for summary judgment

7

is ruled on.

8

IV.

Order
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for protective order to

9
10

modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order to stay all discovery other than as it relates to

11

Plaintiff’s exhaustion efforts, filed on December 28, 2015 (Doc. 35), is GRANTED and the

12

Discovery and Scheduling Order is MODIFIED. All current deadlines are vacated and discovery

13

in this action is stayed other than that related to Plaintiff’s exhaustion efforts.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
Dated:
16

January 14, 2016

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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