Quiroz v. Cate et al
Filing
118
ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 100 Motion compel Pelican Bay State Prison Warden to allow him to obtain declarations from inmate witnesses; granting 111 Motion to Stay; granting 115 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 105 MOTION to Dismiss Responses due by 3/20/2012. Replies due by 4/11/2012. (Attachments: # 1 certificate of mailing) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2012)
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
14
15
16
MARK ROBERT QUIROZ,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
No. C 11-0016 LHK (PR)
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
STAY DISCOVERY; DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL; GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
(Docket Nos. 100, 111, 115)
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983. The Court partially dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, and ordered it served upon
19
named Defendants.
20
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and based on
21
qualified immunity. Defendants have also filed a motion to stay discovery pending the
22
resolution of their dispositive motion. A district court has broad discretion to stay discovery
23
pending the disposition of a dispositive motion. See Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762
24
F.2d 1550, 1560 (11th Cir. 1985). Moreover, a district court should stay discovery until the
25
threshold question of qualified immunity is settled. See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574,
26
598 (1998); Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 646 n.6 (1987). Thus, Defendants’ motion to
27
stay discovery is GRANTED. Discovery shall be stayed until the Court has adjudicated
28
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and request for qualified immunity. If the Defendants’ motion to
dismiss and/or request for qualified immunity does not dispose of this entire action, the stay will
Order Addressing Pending Motions
P:\pro-se\sj.lhk\cr.11\Quiroz016misc2
1
2
be automatically lifted without further order from the Court.
Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel the Pelican Bay State Prison Warden to allow him
3
to obtain declarations from inmate witnesses in the Security Housing Unit. Alternatively, he
4
requests appointment of counsel. As stated above, currently pending before the Court is
5
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Dismissal for failure to state a claim is
6
a ruling on a question of law. See Parks School of Business, Inc., v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480,
7
1483 (9th Cir. 1995). “The issue is not whether plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether he
8
is entitled to offer evidence to support his claim.” Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556,
9
561 (9th Cir. 1987). At this time, Plaintiff’s motion for a Court order compelling the Warden to
10
permit him to obtain declarations from other inmates is DENIED without prejudice to renewal
11
after the Court resolves Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and request for qualified immunity.
12
Plaintiff’s motion, in the alternative, for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice
13
for the reasons already stated in the Court’s November 28, 2011 order.
14
Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an opposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s
15
opposition is due no later than March 20, 2012. Defendants’ reply shall be filed fifteen days
16
thereafter.
17
This order terminates docket numbers 100, 111, and 115.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
DATED:
1/5/12
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Addressing Pending Motions
P:\pro-se\sj.lhk\cr.11\Quiroz016misc2
2
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?