Edwards v. Zavaras et al

Filing 24

ORDER granting 21 Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery and Vacate Preliminary Scheduling Conference. Discovery is stayed. The Scheduling Conference set for 8/18/2011 is vacated. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 7/5/2011. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00918-LTB-MEH
EUGENE EDWARDS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS, as Executive Director of DOC, in his Individual and Official
Capacit[ies],
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery and Vacate Preliminary
Scheduling Conference [filed July 1, 2011; docket #21]. The motion has been referred to this Court
for disposition [docket #22]. Oral argument would not materially assist the Court in adjudicating
this motion. For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion is granted.
I.

Background
Plaintiff instituted this action on April 6, 2011. In essence, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

has denied him access to mandatory sex offender treatment in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment. See Complaint, docket #1, at 3. On July 1, 2011, Defendant responded to the
Complaint by filing a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See docket #20.
Simultaneously with that motion, Defendant filed the within Motion to Stay, asserting that, “the
district court should resolve the threshold question [of qualified immunity] before permitting
discovery.” See docket #21 at ¶ 6.

II.

Discussion
The Supreme Court has emphasized the broad protection qualified immunity affords, giving

officials “a right, not merely to avoid ‘standing trial,’ but also to avoid the burdens of ‘such pretrial
matters as discovery.’ “ Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308 (1996) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth,
472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)); see also Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998).
Consequently, courts should resolve the purely legal question raised by a qualified immunity defense
at the earliest possible stage in litigation. Albright v. Rodriguez, 51 F.3d 1531, 1534 (10th Cir.
1995); see also Medina v. Cram, 252 F.3d 1124, 1127-28 (10th Cir. 2001).
In this case, Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the claims raised in Plaintiff’s
Complaint alleging, among other defenses, that he enjoys both absolute immunity under the
Eleventh Amendment in his official capacity and qualified immunity in his individual capacity from
the Plaintiff’s claims. The Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power
to control its own docket. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citing Landis v. North
American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Because Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss raises legal
questions of this Court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute, these questions should
be resolved as early as possible in the litigation. See Albright, 51 F.3d at 1534. Consequently, the
Court will grant a temporary stay of the proceedings in this matter pending the disposition of the
Motion to Dismiss.
III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion

to Stay Discovery and Vacate Preliminary Scheduling Conference [filed July 1, 2011; docket #21]
is granted. The proceedings of this case are hereby stayed pending the District Court’s ruling on

2

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. As such, the Scheduling Conference currently set for August 18,
2011 at 9:30 a.m. is vacated. The parties are directed to submit a status report within five days of
the entry of any order adjudicating the pending Motion to Dismiss.
Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 5th day of July, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge

3