Cary v. Hickenlooper et al

Filing 64

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 49 Motion to Stay; granting in part and denying in part 62 Motion to Say. The Scheduling Conference scheduled for April 21, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. is VACATED and will be RESET, if necessary, once the court has an opportunity to consider the pending Motion to Dismiss [#35] and Motion to Disqualify Attorney General [#45]. By Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 4-17-15. (nywlc2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00411-NYW
ARNOLD A. CARY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Governor, State of Colorado,
RICK RAEMISCH, Executive Director, CDOC,
JAMES FALK, Warden, SCF,
MAURICE FAUVEL, D.O., Physician, SCF,
KERI MCKAY, P.A., SCF, Physician Assistant,
KELSEY PRUSHA, also known as Kelsey Dillinger, R.N., Registered Nurse, SCF,
KEVIN VORWALD, Captain, SCF,
PAGE, Lieutenant, SCF,
MOON, Lieutenant, SCF,
LUECK, Case Manager, SCF, and
HERREA, Case Manager, SCF,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang
This civil action comes before the court on Defendant’s Amended Motion to Stay
Discovery and Stay Any Scheduling Proceeding filed on March 19, 2015 [#49] and Plaintiff
Arnold Carey’s Motion for Stay [#62] filed on March 17, 2015, seeking a forty-five day stay of
the proceedings (collectively, “pending Motions to Stay”). The pending Motions for Stay were
referred to this Magistrate Judge pursuant to the Order of Reference [#53] and the Memoranda
dated March 23, 2015 [#54] and April 17, 2015 [#62]. Defendant seeks a stay of the proceedings
until after the disposition of the pending Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff seeks a forty-five day
stay of the case. [#62].
This case was originally filed over a year ago, on February 13, 2014. [#1]. The court has
granted Plaintiff multiple extensions in this case, including vacating and resetting a previously
scheduled Scheduling Conference due to Plaintiff’s Objections to the Proposed Scheduling
Order. [#59]. Despite the additional time, it does not appear that Plaintiff submitted any portion

of the Proposed Scheduling Order, as required by the Rules of this Court. None of the Parties
appears to be ready to proceed to discovery in this matter.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1)
Defendant’s Amended Motion to Stay Discovery and Stay Any Scheduling
Proceeding [#49] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;
(2)
PART; and

Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay [#62] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

(3)
The Scheduling Conference scheduled for April 21, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. is
VACATED and will be RESET, if necessary, once the court has an opportunity to consider the
pending Motion to Dismiss [#35] and Motion to Disqualify Attorney General [#45].

DATED: April 17, 2015