Hallman v. Cate et al

Filing 35

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 27 Motion to Stay; granting 31 Motion for Extension of Time to File; granting 33 Motion to Amend/Correct ; (Attachments: # 1 certificate of mailing) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2011)

Hallman v. Cate et al

Doc. 35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 v. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed this instant pro se prisoner complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 24, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery based on qualified immunity. On February 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file his opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss. On February 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. 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). However, motions to stay discovery are not favored where resolution of the dispositive motion may not dispose of the entire case. Id. Here, should Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted, it would dispose of the entire case. Moreover, the Court should stay discovery until it resolves the question of qualified immunity. See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598
Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery; Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time; Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.10\Hallman548GrantStay-Eot.wpd

JOHN STEVEN HALLMAN, Plaintiff,

MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.

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

No. C 10-3548 LHK (PR) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY; GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (Docket Nos. 27, 31 and 33)

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

(1998). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to stay discovery until disposition of Defendants' motion to dismiss. Because it appears no party would be prejudiced by an extension, Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file his opposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his opposition, on or before March 25, 2011. Defendants shall file their reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days from the date the opposition is filed. A review of Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint reveals that it adds more details and clarifies Plaintiff's claims, but does not alter the Defendants named or the substance of Plaintiff's allegations. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). The clerk shall file Plaintiff's amended complaint. Plaintiff's amended complaint is the operative complaint. See London v. Cooper & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir, 1981). This order terminates docket nos. 27, 31 and 33. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 3/14/11 LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge

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

Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery; Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time; Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint 2 P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.10\Hallman548GrantStay-Eot.wpd