Dawson v. Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 47

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' Motion to Stay 43 ; ORDER VACATING Discovery and Scheduling Order August 1, 2017 46 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/6/17: A new Discovery and Scheduling Order shall be issued after the motion to dismiss, filed on July 20, 2017, is resolved. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISSAC DA’BOUR DAWSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. CDCR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. 1:15-cv-01867-DAD-GSA-PC ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY (ECF No. 43.) ORDER VACATING DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER OF AUGUST 1, 2017 (ECF No. 46.) BACKGROUND 18 Isaac Da’Bour Dawson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds 20 with Plaintiff’s initial Complaint filed on December 14, 2015, on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment 21 claim against Defendants Johnson, Guzman, Gonzales, and Sheldon, and First Amendment 22 retaliation claim against Defendants Guzman, Gonzales, and Marsh. (ECF No. 1.) 23 On July 26, 2017, defendant Sheldon filed an answer to the complaint, and all of the 24 Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery. (ECF Nos. 41, 43.) Following the filing of 25 defendant Sheldon’s answer, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order opening 26 discovery on August 1, 2017.1 (ECF No. 46.) 27 28 1 Ordinarily, the court issues a Discovery and Scheduling Order opening discovery upon the filing of an answer by one or more defendants. 1 Based on the following analysis, Defendants’ motion to stay shall be granted, and the 1 2 Discovery and Scheduling Order shall be vacated. 3 II. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY 4 The court has inherent authority to manage the cases before it. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 5 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power 6 inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of 7 time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the 8 exercise of judgment which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”) 9 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes “any order which justice requires 10 to protect a party . . . from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden of 11 expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Stays of proceeding in federal court, including stays of 12 discovery, are committed to the discretion of the trial court. See, e.g., Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 13 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987). 14 Defendants request a stay of discovery pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss 15 filed by defendants Gonzales, Guzman, Johnson, and Marsh on December 14, 2016. (ECF No. 16 27.) Defendants argue that staying discovery until a determination of which defendants and 17 claims are at issue will ensure the just, speedy, and most efficient use of resources, and 18 potentially avoid piecemeal discovery. Defendants argue that because defendant Sheldon is the 19 only defendant who has filed an answer to date, a stay of discovery will avoid the opening of 20 discovery piecemeal, and opening discovery at one time for all Defendants will achieve greater 21 efficiency in the discovery process. Defendants assert that regardless of the outcome of the 22 motion to dismiss, if discovery is stayed at this juncture, the parties may proceed with 23 discovery at one time under a single set of discovery and scheduling deadlines. 24 Defendants’ motion has merit. The court awaits the filing of Plaintiff’s opposition to 25 the pending motion to dismiss, and therefore the motion is not ready for resolution. A stay of 26 discovery at this stage of the proceedings, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss, is likely 27 to protect the parties and the court from undue burden and expense, and the court finds no 28 prejudice to Plaintiff. 2 1 The court shall vacate the Discovery and Scheduling Order issued on August 1, 2017, 2 and issue a new Discovery and Scheduling Order after the pending motion to dismiss has been 3 resolved. 4 III. CONCLUSION 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Defendants motion to stay, filed on July 26, 2017, is GRANTED; 7 2. The Discovery and Scheduling Order, issued on August 1, 2017, is VACATED; 8 9 and 3. 10 A new Discovery and Scheduling Order shall be issued after the motion to dismiss, filed on July 20, 2017, is resolved. 11 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 6, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?