Havens v. Clements et al

Filing 53

ORDER granting 51 Motion to Stay. The proceedings of this case are hereby stayed pending the District Court=s ruling on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. The Scheduling Conference currently set for 10/24/2013 is vacated. The parties are directed to submit a status report within five days of the entry of any order adjudicating the pending Motions to Dismiss. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 9/30/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00452-MSK-MEH
DARRELL HAVENS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOM CLEMENTS, in his individual and official capacities,
CARMEN MEYERS, in her individual and official capacities,
JAIME HARRELSON, in her individual and official capacities,
WONDA JACOBS, in her individual and official capacities,
KIMBERLY BOYDIN, in her individual and official capacities,
HERMELLA ASSEFA, in her individual and official capacities,
EMANUEL OKAI, in his individual and official capacities, and
PHYSICIANS HEALTHCARE PARTNERS,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Vacate Scheduling Conference set for October
24, 2013 Pending Resolution of Qualified Immunity [filed September 25, 2013; docket #51].
The motion is construed as a motion to stay discovery and has been referred to this Court for
disposition [docket #52]. Oral argument would not materially assist the Court in adjudicating
this motion. For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion is granted.
I.

Background
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Denver Reception & Diagnostic Center, originated this action

on February 20, 2013, and is proceeding pro se. In essence, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
have denied him corrective surgery, medical treatment and medication for several ailments. See

Amended Complaint, docket #9; Order to Dismiss in Part and Draw in Part, docket #10. On
August 5, 2013, the State Defendants responded to the Amended Complaint by filing a Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

See docket #39.

Thereafter,

Defendants filed the present Motion to Stay, asserting that, Ait serves the interests of judicial
economy and the conservation of resources to stay proceedings and resolve this issue [of
qualified immunity] at the earliest possible state in the litigation.=@ See docket #51 at & 10.
II.

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

giving officials Aa right, not merely to avoid >standing trial,= but also to avoid the burdens of >such
pretrial matters as discovery.= A 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, the State Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the Plaintiff=s Amended
Complaint asserting, among other defenses, that they enjoy absolute and qualified immunity 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 the State Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss raises legal questions of this Court=s jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
dispute, the question should be resolved as early as possible in the litigation. See Albright, 51
F.3d at 1534. Moreover, the Court finds that allowing discovery to continue in this matter
against Defendant PHP would not serve the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, as a

recommendation to grant PHP’s motion to dismiss is currently pending before the District Court.
Consequently, the Court will grant a temporary stay of the proceedings in this matter pending
the disposition of the Motions to Dismiss.
III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Vacate Scheduling

Conference set for October 24, 2013 Pending Resolution of Qualified Immunity [filed September
25, 2013; docket #51], construed as a motion to stay discovery temporarily, is granted. The
proceedings of this case are hereby stayed pending the District Court=s ruling on Defendants’
Motions to Dismiss. The Scheduling Conference currently set for October 24, 2013 is vacated.
The parties are directed to submit a status report within five days of the entry of any order
adjudicating the pending Motions to Dismiss.
Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 30th day of September, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge

3