Waynewood v. Colorado Department of Corrections et al

Filing 21

ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY granting 20 Motion to Stay Discovery and Vacate the 7/29/2015 Scheduling Conference by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 7/15/2015. Discovery in this case is stayed temporarily pending the Courts ruling on Defendants Motion toDismiss. Accordingly, the Scheduling Conference currently set for 7/29/2015 is vacated and will be rescheduled, if necessary, upon the Courts ruling on the motion to dismiss.(mdave, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00946-MEH
DE’ON WAYNEWOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.
KATHLEEN NELSON, and
MARY CARLSON,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
______________________________________________________________________________
Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is the Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery and Vacate the July 29, 2015
Scheduling Conference [filed July 15, 2015; docket #20]. The Court finds that further briefing and
oral argument would not materially assist the Court in adjudicating this motion. For the reasons that
follow, Defendants’ motion is granted.
I.

Background
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this lawsuit on May 4, 2015 alleging that Defendants

erred in calculating his sentence. Complaint, docket #1. During initial review, Senior Judge
Babcock dismissed the entity Defendants but allowed Plaintiff’s claims against the individual
Defendants (hereafter, “Defendants”) to proceed. Order, docket #5. On July 13, 2015, the
Defendants timely responded to the Complaint by filing a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) arguing, inter alia, they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity
in their official capacities and qualified immunity in their individual capacities. See docket #18.

Thereafter, Defendants filed the present Motion to Stay, asserting they are entitled to a stay of
discovery and that it serves the interests of judicial economy and the conservation of resources to
stay proceedings and resolve the issue of qualified immunity at the earliest possible stage in the
litigation. See docket #20.
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, the Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the constitutional claims raised
in Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging, among other defenses, that the official-capacity Defendants enjoy
Eleventh Amendment immunity and the individual-capacity Defendants enjoy 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 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.

Consequently, the Court will grant the Defendants a temporary stay of discovery in this case pending
the resolution of their Motion to Dismiss.

2

III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery and

Vacate the July 29, 2015 Scheduling Conference [filed July 15, 2015; docket #20] is granted.
Discovery in this case is stayed temporarily pending the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss. Accordingly, the Scheduling Conference currently set for July 29, 2015 is vacated and
will be rescheduled, if necessary, upon the Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss. 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 15th day of July, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge

3