Lilly v. Hartley et al

Filing 36

MINUTE ORDER granting 34 Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery. Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [docket #33]. Plaintiff shall respond on or before 6/21/2011. Defendants may reply within fourteen days of Plaintiff's response. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/31/2011. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02738-REB-MEH
CURTIS L. LILLY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MR. JASON FASSLER, Correctional Officer, Fremont Correctional Facility, and
MR. ROBERT BEAUMONT, Correction Officer, Fremont Correctional Facility,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 31, 2011.
Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery [filed May 27, 2011; docket #34] is granted. 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). Defendants raise qualified immunity as a defense in the
pending motion to dismiss; therefore, the Court must follow Supreme Court precedent regarding
staying discovery until resolution of the immunity question. Accordingly, discovery in this matter
is hereby stayed.
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [filed May 27, 2011; docket
#33]. Plaintiff shall respond on or before June 21, 2011. Defendants may reply within fourteen
days of Plaintiff’s response.