Gammons v. City of Denver, Colorado et al

Filing 34

MINUTE ORDER. Defendants Motion to Stay Discovery 23 is GRANTED, and discovery is STAYED. The parties shall file a joint written Status Report with the court concerning the Defendants Motion to Dismiss 22 on the first day of each month beginning 4/1/2011, or show cause why this case should not be dismissed. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 3/1/2011.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 10-cv-01598-REB-MJW DENEEN R. GAMMONS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DENVER, COLORADO, CHIEF OF POLICE GERALD R. WHITMAN, in his official and individual capacities, OFFICER STEPHEN STACK, in his official and individual capacities, DETECTIVE HENRY P. GONZALES, in his official and individual capacities, DETECTIVE KARA BILSTEIN, in her official and individual capacities, SGT. KIM HULL, in her official and individual capacities, UNKNOWN CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER POLICE OFFICERS, DETECTIVES, AND SERGEANTS, JOHN DOES 1 - 10, in their official and individual capacities Defendants. MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery (docket no. 23) is GRANTED, and discovery is STAYED for the following reasons. Plaintiff has failed to file any response to the subject motion, and this court deems the motion confessed. In addition, this court finds that there is pending, before Judge Blackburn, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 22) that is based upon the doctrine of qualified immunity. Pursuant to Workman v. Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 335 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1015 (1995), and Pet Milk Co. v. Ritter, 323 F.2d 586, 587 (10th Cir. 1963) (recognizing that the court has the inherent power to stay proceedings pending before it and to control its docket for the purpose of economy of time and effort for itself, counsel, and litigants), the subject motion should be granted. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint written Status Report

2 with the court concerning the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 22) on the first day of each month beginning April 1, 2011, or show cause why this case should not be dismissed. Date: March 1, 2011