Bacote Jr v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/5/15. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [#72] is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is STAYED for 90 days while settlement discussions continue in the Class Action Lawsuit, 12-cv-01570-RPM-MEH. (lgale, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02589-REB-KLM
MICHAEL BACOTE JR,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
G. SANDUSKY, Correctional Officer, and
A. BALSICK, Correctional Officer
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. As Plaintiff states in his Amended
served as the lead-Plaintiff in a class action Complaint (the “[Class Action]
Lawsuit”). See Cunningham v. BOP, 1:12-cv-01570-RPM-MEH. More
precisely, through the Lawsuit [Plaintiff] sought declaratory and injunctive
relief regarding Defendant BOP’s compliance with its own existing policies
regarding the placement and treatment of mentally ill prisoners at ADX and
with the requirements of the Eighth Amendment regarding mental health care
for all prisoners who have been committed to Defendant BOP’s custody at
Am. Compl. [#70] ¶ 25. The Class Action Lawsuit remains pending in this Court.
In this lawsuit, Plaintiff’s second claim is essentially duplicative of the claims
asserted in Class Action Lawsuit. Compare id. ¶¶ 39-42 (asserting Eighth Amendment
claim) with First Am. Compl. [#67] ¶¶ 390-97 filed in 12-cv-01570-RPM-MEH (bringing
Eighth Amendment claims on behalf of ADX inmates who suffer from serious mental
illnesses). In addition, Plaintiff asks the Court to “[e]nter an Order transferring [Plaintiff] to
a prison facility equipped to address [his] serious mental illness” and to “[e]nter an
injunction directing that Defendant BOP implement a program of mental health screening
and diagnosis for the benefit of [Plaintiff].” Id. at 11. This requested relief is, in part,
duplicative of the relief requested in the Class Action Lawsuit. See First Am. Compl.
[#67]at 132-35 filed in 12-cv-01570-RPM-MEH.
The parties have engaged in extensive settlement negotiations in the Class Action
Lawsuit. See generally Minute Entry [#170], Minute Entry [#171], Minute Order [#172],
Minute Entry [#173], Minute Order [#185], Minute Entry [#187], Minute Order [#188], Minute
Entry [#191], Minute Entry [#198], Minute Entry [#199], Minute Order [#207], Minute Entry
[#210], Minute Entry [#211], Minute Entry [#214], Minute Order [#215], Minute Entry [#218],
Minute Entry [#222], Minute Entry [#224], Minute Order [#228]. Continuation of the
settlement conference in the Class Action Lawsuit is scheduled for January 6, 2015. See
Minute Order [#228] at 1. Settlement of the Class Action Lawsuit is very likely to impact
Plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit. Because of the overlap of issues between the instant case
and the Class Action Lawsuit, the Court considers whether a stay of this litigation is
Although a stay of proceedings in a case is generally disfavored, the Court has
discretion to enter a stay. Compare Wason Ranch Corp. v. Hecla Mining Co., No. 07-cv00267-EWN-MEH, 2007 WL 1655362, at *1 (D. Colo. June 6, 2007) (“A stay of all
discovery is generally disfavored in this District.” (citation omitted)); with Ellis v. J.R.’s
Country Stores, Inc., No. 12-cv-01916-CMA-KLM, 2012 WL 6153513, at *1 (D. Colo. Dec.
11, 2012) (granting stay of proceedings).
The “[C]ourt has inherent power to stay
proceedings ‘to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and
effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’” Ellis, 2012 WL 6153513, at *1 (quoting Landis
v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (observing that docket management “calls for the
exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even
balance”)); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 804 (Fed.Cir.1999)
(“When a particular issue may be dispositive, the court may stay discovery concerning
other issues until the critical issue is resolved.”); Chavous v. D.C. Fin. Responsibility &
Mgmt. Assistance Auth., 201 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.D.C.2001) (“A stay of discovery pending the
determination of a dispositive motion is an eminently logical means to prevent wasting the
time and effort of all concerned, and to make the most efficient use of judicial resources.”
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also String Cheese Incident, LLC v.
Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 05-cv-01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30,
2006) (finding that a thirty day stay of discovery was appropriate when a motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction was pending); Nankivil v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 216
F.R.D. 689, 692 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (finding that a stay may be appropriate if “resolution of
a preliminary motion may dispose of the entire action.”); 8 Charles Alan Wright, et al.,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 2040, at 521-22 (2d ed. 1994) (“[W]hen one issue may
be determinative of a case, the court has discretion to stay discovery on other issues until
the critical issue has been decided.”); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
795, 804 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“When a particular issue may be dispositive, the court may stay
discovery concerning other issues until the critical issue is resolved.”); Gilbert v. Ferry, 401
F.3d 411, 415-16 (6th Cir. 2005) (finding that staying discovery is not an abuse of discretion
when a defendant has filed a motion to dismiss challenging the court’s subject matter
jurisdiction); Chavous v. D.C. Fin. Responsibility & Mgmt. Assistance Auth., 201 F.R.D. 1,
2 (D.D.C. 2005) (“A stay of discovery pending the determination of a dispositive motion is
an eminently logical means to prevent wasting the time and effort of all concerned, and to
make the most efficient use of judicial resources.” (internal quotation omitted)).
When exercising its discretion to enter a stay, the Court considers the following
factors: (1) the interest of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously and the potential
prejudice to the plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the defendant; (3) the convenience
to the Court; (4) the interests of nonparties; and (5) the public interest. String Cheese
Incident, LLC, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (citing FDIC v. Renda, No. 85-2216-O, 1987 WL
348635, at *2 (D. Kan. Aug. 6, 1987)).
First, staying discovery may prejudice Plaintiff because there will be some delay in
adjudication of his claims. Accordingly, the first String Cheese Incident factor weighs
against a stay. However, the Court can mitigate this potential prejudice by limiting the
length of the stay.
With regard to the second factor, it appears Defendants will not be burdened by a
stay because a stay will conserve financial resources and avoid the risk of opposing legal
rulings on similar claims in this case and the Class Action Lawsuit. A stay of this case will
also allow Defendants to focus their resources on resolving the issues in the Class Action
Lawsuit. The Court therefore finds that the second String Cheese Incident factor weighs
in favor of a stay.
With regard to the third and fifth factors, because of the potential for opposing legal
rulings on the Eighth Amendment claims in this case and the Class Action Lawsuit, the
Court finds that it is in the Court’s and the public’s interest for the Court to enter a limited
stay of this case while the settlement discussions in the Class Action Lawsuit continue.
The Court therefore finds that the third and fifth String Cheese Incident factors weigh in
favor of a stay.
With regard to the fourth factor, there are no nonparties with significant particularized
interests in this case. Accordingly, the fourth String Cheese Incident factor neither weighs
in favor nor against a stay. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is STAYED for 90 days while settlement
discussions continue in the Class Action Lawsuit, 12-cv-01570-RPM-MEH. After 90 days,
the Court will reevaluate the propriety of continuing the stay and may extend the stay if the
Court determines that it is appropriate to do so. For purposes of clarification, the Court
notes that a stay of this litigation does not deprive Plaintiff of his claims in this case or of
his eventual ability to seek relief from the Court. It simply stops the case from moving
forward for a period of time. Therefore, until the stay is lifted, the case will not move
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [#72] is DENIED
without prejudice. If the case proceeds after the stay is lifted, the parties may ask the
Court to revive the pending motion to dismiss [#72] and pending Response [#76].
Dated: January 5, 2015
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?