Faircloth v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 131

ORDER; 129 Petition for Stay of Proceedings to Consult with Attorney is GRANTED. This is case is STAYED through 8/30/15. 109 Motion for Extension of Time to File, 111 Motion for Leave, 112 Motion to Certify Class and 113 Motion to Appo int Counsel are DENIED with prejudice. On or before 8/30/2015, Plaintiff shall file a Status Report informing the Court: (1) whether he has obtained representation and (2) whether he intends to move forward with this lawsuit. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of this case, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 6/23/15.(morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00464-REB-KLM
JAMES FAIRCLOTH,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
RICK RAEMISCH, Executive Direction of CDOC, in his individual and official capacities,
DAVE HENNINGER, CEO of CCA, in his individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
________________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Petition for Stay of Proceedings to
Consult With Attorney [#129]1 (the “Motion”). In the Motion, Plaintiff requests that this
case be stayed through August 30, 2015. Motion [#129] at 1. He explains that he would
like time to consult with Elisabeth Owen, an attorney with the Prisoners’ Justice League of
Colorado. Id. Plaintiff notes that he hopes that consulting with Ms. Owen will lead to either
“a possible resolution” of this and his other pending lawsuits or Ms. Owen’s agreement that
she will represent him in this case. Id.

The Motion does not inform the Court of

Defendants’ position regarding the requested relief and conferral was not required because
Plaintiff is an unrepresented prisoner. D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(b)(1). Nevertheless, the Court

1

“[#129]” is an example of the convention the Court uses to identify the docket number
assigned to a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system
(CM/ECF). The Court uses this convention throughout this Order.

1

enters this Order pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d) (“Nothing in this rule precludes a
judicial officer from ruling on a motion at any time after it is filed.”), without awaiting a
response from Defendants.
I. Analysis
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, 299 U.S. at 254 (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
2

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)).
In this case, a stay would apparently not prejudice Plaintiff because he requests the
stay. Motion [#129] at 1. Therefore, the Court finds that the first String Cheese Incident
factor weighs in favor of a stay.
3

With regard to the second factor, the Court does not know if Defendants oppose the
requested relief. However, the Court notes that the requested stay is of short duration and
that if Plaintiff does obtain the assistance of an attorney, Defendants may be able to
resolve this lawsuit while conserving resources. In addition, Plaintiff recently filed a motion
seeking leave of the Court to amend his claims. See generally Motion to File Amended
Complaint Outside of Time [#111]. As a result, as the Court has previously noted, “even
though this case was filed more than one year ago, it is still in its earliest stages ‘and the
Court and Defendants still do not know what claims Plaintiffs is bringing.’” Order Denying
Motions for Appointment of Counsel [#107] at 2 (quoting Minute Order [#106] at 2). As a
result there are no impending deadlines in this case. However, because the Court does
not know Defendants’ position, it finds that the second String Cheese Incident factor neither
weighs in favor nor against a stay.
With regard to the third factor, it is certainly more convenient for the Court to enter
a stay to allow Plaintiff to seek legal representation and attempt to resolve this case. The
Court therefore finds that the third String Cheese Incident factor weighs 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 of nor against a stay.
With regard to the fifth and final factor, the Court finds that the public’s only interest
in this case is a general interest in its efficient and just resolution. Staying this proceeding
to allow Plaintiff to confer with an attorney and attempt to obtain representation serves this
interest. Thus, the fifth String Cheese Incident factor weighs in favor of a stay.
Considering these factors, the Court finds that a stay of short duration is appropriate
4

in this case.
II. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#129] is GRANTED. This case is
STAYED through August 30, 2015.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for docket management purposes, the following
motions are DENIED without prejudice: Petition for Extension of Time in Case No.
14cv464 REB KLM [#109]; Motion to File Amended Complaint Outside of Time [#111];
Motion for Class Certification Complaint Class Action [#112]; and Motion for Appointment
of Counsel Motion for Class Certification Complaint Class Action [#113]. The filing party
may re-file any of these motions, if appropriate, after the stay is lifted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before August 30, 2015, Plaintiff shall file
a Status Report informing the Court: (1) whether he has obtained representation and (2)
whether he intends to move forward with this lawsuit.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions,
including dismissal of this case.
Dated: June 23, 2015

5