Baker v. Moreno, et al.

Filing 30

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 28 Motion to Stay; Discovery and Scheduling Order is Modified to Vacate all current deadlines and stay discovery in this action other than that related to Plaintiff's exhaustion efforts, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/4/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

Case No. 1:16-cv-01758-AWI-SKO (PC)
TOMMIE LEE BAKER, III,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER
STAYING ACTION OTHER THAN REGARDING
EXHAUSTION AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MORENO, et al.,
(Doc. 28)
Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17

I.

Background
Plaintiff, Tommie Lee Baker, III, is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department

18

of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds in this action

20

against Correctional Officers Raymond A. Moreno and Mark Evans, as well as Sergeant Choua

21

Yang for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

22

On November 27, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, contending

23

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. 27.)

24

Concurrently therewith, Defendants file a motion seeking to stay all discovery and vacate the

25
26
27
28

discovery and scheduling order. (Doc. 28.) While Plaintiff’s time to file an opposition has not
lapsed, (see Docs. 32, 33), 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 as a new Discovery and Scheduling Order will issue if the exhaustion issue is not

1

1

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 on August 30, 2017. (Doc. 18.) On November 27, 2017, Defendants filed their motion for

12

summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s asserted failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior

13

to filing suit. (Doc. 27.) Defendants concurrently filed a motion to stay discovery and vacate the

14

deadlines set in the Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 28.) These motions were timely filed

15
16

before the November 30, 2017 deadline for filing exhaustion motions.2
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
26
27

1

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will hereinafter be referred to as “Rule *.”
The Court notes that should Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted, the case will be dismissed. As
such, modification of the Discovery and Scheduling Order will avoid wasted resources by the parties and is in the
interests of judicial economy.
2

28
2

1

moving party; the hardship or inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and the

2

judicial resources that would be saved by simplifying the case or avoiding duplicative litigation if

3

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

4

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

5

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,

6
7

the case will be dismissed. As such, it is reasonable to stay discovery other than that related to

8

Plaintiff’s exhaustion efforts pending a ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.3

9

IV.

Order
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to stay

10
11

proceedings pending a ruling on their motion for summary judgment on exhaustion issues, filed

12

on November 27, 2017, (Doc. 28), is GRANTED in part. The Discovery and Scheduling Order is

13

MODIFIED to vacate all current deadlines and stay discovery in this action other than that related

14

to Plaintiff’s exhaustion efforts.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated:

December 4, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

Although Defense counsel represents that none of the discovery Plaintiff has propounded address his exhaustion
efforts, Plaintiff is not precluded from seeking discovery relating his exhaustion efforts under F.R.C.P. 56(d).

3