Martinez Castro v. Unnamed Defendants

Filing 61

ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 53 Motion to Stay; ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 56 Motion to Modify Discovery and Scheduling Order; The current deadlines for the completion of discovery and the filing of dispositive motions (other than a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust) set forth in the February 10, 2016 scheduling order in this matter are VACATED, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 03/23/2017. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GLENN S. MARTINEZ CASTRO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
UNNAMED DEFENDANTS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

I.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01326-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO STAY
(ECF No. 53)
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING
ORDER
(ECF No. 56.)

Introduction
Plaintiff Glenn S. Martinez Castro (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

20

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second

21

Amended Complaint against Defendant Correctional Officer Elias for excessive force in violation of

22

the Eighth Amendment.

23

Currently before the Court are (1) Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of

24

motion for summary judgment on issue of exhaustion, filed May 5, 2016 (ECF No. 53); and (2)

25

Defendant’s motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order, filed September 7, 2016 (ECF No.

26

56). Plaintiff filed no opposition to these motions within the time permitted. Local Rule 230(l). On

27

October 10, 2016 and October 12, 2016, Defendant filed a reply standing on each of the original

28

motions. (ECF No. 58, 60.) The motions are deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
1

1

II.

Defendant’s Motion to Stay and Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order
In Defendant’s motion to stay discovery, Defendant seeks a motion to stay discovery pending

2
3

the resolution of the motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion. (ECF No. 53.) Defense

4

counsel filed a declaration in support stating that they have received merits-based discovery from

5

Plaintiff that does not bear on the motion for summary judgment, and Defendant seeks an order

6

allowing them to delay their response to such discovery pending the outcome of their summary

7

judgment motion.
In Defendant’s motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order, Defendant requests that

8
9
10

the Court suspend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines until after a final ruling on
Defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion. (ECF No. 56.)
The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to

11
12

control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American

13

Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of establishing the need to

14

stay the action. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708.
Here, the Court finds that Defendants have met the burden of showing good cause to stay all

15
16

non-exhaustion related discovery in this case, to modify the discovery and dispositive motion

17

deadlines in this matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). As Defendants argue, proceeding with discovery

18

that is not related to their potentially dispositive motion will result in unnecessary motion practice,

19

litigation costs, and a waste of judicial resources. Furthermore, concurrently with this order, the

20

undersigned shall issue findings and recommendations regarding Defendant’s motion for summary

21

judgment for the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. As a result, a final ruling on that matter is

22

imminent. If Defendants’ motion does not resolve this case, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a

23

modest delay in proceeding with non-exhaustion related discovery under the circumstances, and

24

deadlines may be set to ensure this matter proceeds to resolution in a speedy manner.

25

III.

Conclusion and Order

26

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

27

1.

28

Defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of motion for summary

judgment on issue of exhaustion, filed May 5, 2016 (ECF No. 53), is GRANTED;
2

1
2
3

2.

Defendant’s motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order, filed September 7,

2016 (ECF No. 56), is GRANTED;
3.

The current deadlines for the completion of discovery and the filing of dispositive

4

motions (other than a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust) set forth in the February

5

10, 2016 scheduling order in this matter are VACATED; and

6

4.

In the event that the case is not resolved on the pending summary judgment motion, the

7

Court will issue an order lifting the stay of discovery and requiring Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s

8

written discovery requests within (45) days from the date of service of that order, and an amended

9

discovery and scheduling order setting forth the deadlines for the completion of discovery and filing

10

deadlines for any further dispositive motions.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

March 23, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3