Mason v. Hartley et al

Filing 23

ORDER. Defendants Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Qualified Immunity Defense Asserted in Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) 21 is GRANTED in PART AND DENIED in PART. The parties shall not engage in discovery until after the Scheduling Conference on 8/18/2011. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 6/8/2011.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00578-REB-KLM
SCOTT MASON,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEVE HARTLEY, Warden Fremont Corr. Fac.,
MR. HUGHES, Commander FCF S.E.R.T.,
C/O FRANCIS, FCF S.E.R.T., and
J. DOE, FCF Health Serv. Admin.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery Pending
Resolution of Qualified Immunity Defense Asserted in Motion to Dismiss Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) [Docket No. 21; Filed June 7, 2011] (the “Motion”). On June 6,
2011, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 20] in which they contend that they
are entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Defendants now seek a stay of discovery
until the Motion to Dismiss is resolved. Motion [#21] at 2 (“Once asserted, until the issue
of qualified immunity is resolved, discovery should not be allowed.” (citing Anderson v.
Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 646 n.6 (1987); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-18
(1982); Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations
state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity
is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”))).
-1-

The Court has not yet held a scheduling conference in this case. Accordingly, no
discovery parameters or case management deadlines have been set. A Scheduling
Conference is set for August 18, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Minute Order [Docket No. 18]. The
Court finds that proceeding with discovery before this Conference is unwarranted. If
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [#20] remains pending at the time of the Scheduling
Conference, they may re-file a motion seeking a discovery stay.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#21] is GRANTED in part to the extent
that it seeks to preclude discovery prior to the Scheduling Conference.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion [#21] is otherwise DENIED without
prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall not engage in discovery until after
the Scheduling Conference on August 18, 2011.
DATED: June 8, 2011 at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:
s/ Kristen L. Mix
Kristen L. Mix
United States Magistrate Judge

-2-