Tuckel v. Grover et al

Filing 23

ORDER granting 21 Defendant Grover's Motion to Stay Discovery, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/6/2010. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 10-cv-00215-MSK-MEH MARK TUCKEL, Plaintiff, v. MAJOR GROVER and STEVE KEYS, Defendants. ORDER Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge. Pending before the Court is Defendant Grover's Motion to Stay Discovery [filed May 4, 2010; docket #21]. The motion is referred to this Court for disposition. (Docket #22.) Oral argument would

not materially assist the Court in its adjudication. Based on a clear right to relief as established by the Supreme Court and described herein, the Court decides the motion without reviewing a response from Plaintiff. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Stay Discovery as to Defendant Grover. Plaintiff pro se initiated this Section 1983 action on February 2, 2010. (Docket #3.) Defendant
Grover responded to Plaintiff's Complaint with a combined Motion to Dismiss and alternatively, a Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. (Docket #20 at 2-3.) Defendant Grover also invokes entitlement to qualified immunity regarding Plaintiff's due process claim. (Id. at 5.) Defendant Grover filed the motion presently before the Court contemporaneously with his Motion to Dismiss. Defendant Grover contends that discovery should be stayed pending a determination

of his assertion of qualified immunity. (Docket #21 at 2.) The Court agrees.

The Supreme Court established that evaluating the defense of qualified immunity is a threshold issue, and "[u]ntil this threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed." Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 233 (1991) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)); Workman v. Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir. 1992) (same); see also Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308 & 310 (1996) (noting that discovery can be particularly disruptive when a dispositive motion regarding immunity is pending). As Defendant Grover raises qualified immunity as a defense in the pending Motion to Dismiss, the Court must follow Supreme Court precedent regarding staying discovery until resolution of the immunity question. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Stay [filed May 4, 2010; docket #21] as applied to Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Grover. Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 6th day of May, 2010. BY THE COURT:

Michael E. Hegarty United States Magistrate Judge