Oliver v. Grounds et al

Filing 68

ORDER signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on 1/31/2014 GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 60 MOTION FOR A STAY OF DISCOVERY. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2014)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
4

MAURICE P. OLIVIER,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7

R. GROUNDS, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

11
12
13

16
17
18
19

/

Plaintiff Maurice Olivier, a California inmate, brings the instant pro se action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs while he was previously incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad,
California. In particular, Plaintiff claims that Defendants were deliberately indifferent, either
by not allowing him adequate time to exercise or by denying him adequate pain medication.

14
15

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR A STAY OF
DISCOVERY

v.

8

10

No. C 12-0176 SBA (PR)

Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment along with a motion to stay
discovery pending the resolution of the qualified immunity defense raised in the summary
judgment motion. A district court has broad discretion to stay discovery pending the
disposition of a dispositive motion. See Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d
1550, 1560 (11th Cir. 1985); Scroggins v. Air Cargo, Inc., 534 F.2d 1124, 1133 (5th Cir.
1976).

20

Defendants' summary judgment motion presents arguments on the merits and on the
21

basis of qualified immunity. Dkt.54. "[Q]ualified immunity protects government officials
22

'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established
23

statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" Pearson
24

v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818
25

(1982)). "Qualified immunity is 'an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to
26

liability.'" Conner v. Heiman, 672 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotations and
27

citation omitted).
28

"The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

whether plaintiff's allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation." Hope v. Pelzer,
536 U.S. 730, 736 (2002); see also Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). If the
allegations are sufficient to demonstrate a constitutional violation, the Court must also
determine whether the right alleged to have been violated is "clearly established." Saucier,
533 U.S. at 201. A court determining whether a right was clearly established looks to
"Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit law existing at the time of the alleged act." Cmty. House,
Inc. v. Bieter, 623 F.3d 945, 967 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Osolinski v. Kane, 92 F.3d 934, 936
(9th Cir. 1996)). Whether an act as alleged by the plaintiff is a violation of a federal right

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

and whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation are pure legal

10

questions for the court. See Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1183 (9th Cir. 2003).

11

The objective of the qualified immunity doctrine is to ensure "that 'insubstantial

12

claims' against government officials be resolved prior to discovery and on summary

13

judgment if possible." Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 n. 23 (1987) (citing

14

Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19). As such, a district court generally should stay discovery until

15

the issue of qualified immunity is resolved. See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598

16

(1998); Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818; Dimartini v. Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922, 926 (9th Cir. 1989).

17

"When a plaintiff files a complaint against a public official alleging a claim that requires

18

proof of wrongful motive, the trial court must exercise its discretion in a way that protects the

19

substance of the qualified immunity defense. It must exercise its discretion so that officials

20

are not subjected to unnecessary and burdensome discovery or trial proceedings."

21

Crawford-El, 523 U.S. at 597-98. Nonetheless, discovery as to the issue of qualified

22

immunity may be necessary where the parties dispute the actions taken by the defendants that

23

form the basis of the plaintiff's claim. See Anderson, 483 U.S. at 646 n.6.

24

After a careful review of the record, the Court concludes that a stay of discovery is

25

appropriate. Since Defendants' qualified immunity argument assumes the truth of Plaintiff's

26

version of events, no discovery is necessary for Plaintiff to respond. Id. Therefore,

27

Defendants' request for a stay of discovery (Dkt. 60) is GRANTED. The stay will remain in

28

effect until the Court issues an Order deciding the question of qualified immunity. If the

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Court denies qualified immunity, the stay will be lifted and the parties will have the
opportunity to engage in discovery and to file supplemental pleadings with respect to any
remaining grounds for summary judgment.
Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not yet filed his opposition to Defendants'
motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff must file any opposition to the motion for summary
judgment within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order. The Court is mindful that its stay
of discovery will require some flexibility with respect to the general rules of admissibility of
evidence as to affidavits which may be used to oppose summary judgment. DiMartini v

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922, 926-27 (9th Cir. 1989), amended, 906 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1990), cert.

10

denied, 501 U.S. 1204 (1991). Plaintiff is advised, however, that merely asserting the need

11

for discovery in his opposition papers will not defeat summary judgment. At minimum,

12

Plaintiff must comport with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) and, by affidavit filed in

13

conjunction with his opposition, show what particular facts he expects to discover and how

14

those facts would preclude summary judgment. See Mackey v. Pioneer Nat'l Bank, 867 F.2d

15

520, 523-24 (9th Cir. 1989).

16

This Order terminates Docket No. 60.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

1/31/2014
Dated:______________________________

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.12\Olivier0176.grantSTAY-discovery.wpd

3