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)

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