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