Schmitt v. Craig et al

Filing 136

ORDER granting 121 Motion to Stay Discovery. All discovery is stayed pending further action of the Court. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 03/27/2012. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
MARK HERBERT SCHMITT,
Plaintiff,

V.
SUSAN M. REIMER, et al.,
Defendants.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

CV 110-102

ORDER

On September 28, 2011, Plaintiff Mark Herbert Schmitt
("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro Se, filed his amended complaint against
fifteen (15) named defendants. The allegations in Plaintiff's amended
complaint arise out of events related to his recent divorce.
Defendants in this action include, inter alia, Plaintiff's former
wife, Linda H. Schmitt, Superior Court Judge Daniel Craig, the judge
who presided over Plaintiff's divorce proceedings, and several
attorneys, including the attorney who represented Plaintiff in his
divorce proceedings. Plaintiff brings this action under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ('RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961
et seq., as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985, alleging violations of
his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eight, Ninth, and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

(Doc. no.

97.)
Presently pending before the Court are seven separate motions to
dismiss filed by Defendants Reimer, Craig, Sams, Frey, Garcia,

Coleman, Surrett, Bradford, Glover, Myers, Schmitt, Barbara Smith, and
Beth Smith. (Doc. nos. 115, 116, 119, 122, 123, 125, 133.) Defendant
Craig has also filed a motion to stay discovery, pending the
resolution of his motion to dismiss.

(Doc. no. 121.)

In light of the pending motions, the Court has reviewed the
record, including Plaintiff's amended complaint, and finds that this
case presents unique issues that warrant a complete stay of discovery.'
See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) ("The District Court
has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power
to control its own docket.") . Accordingly, the parties shall not be
required to hold a Rule 26(f) conference until such conference is
ordered by the Court, and all related deadlines will be set at that
time or soon thereafter. Thus, to the extent set forth in this Order,
Defendant Craig's motion to stay discovery (doc. no. 121) is GRANTED.
Further, all discovery in this case is STAYED pending further action
of the Court.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this7 4 Øay of March,
2012.

HQOBLE T. RANDAL HALL /
UNITE STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
1 The Court also notes that a complete stay of discovery is also
warranted in light of Defendant Craig's assertion of immunity. "The basic
thrust of the qualified immunity doctrine is to free officials from the
concerns of litigation, including 'avoidance of disruptive discovery.'"
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1953 (2009) (citations
omitted) . By forcing Defendant Craig to endure the burdens of discovery, his
immunity defenses would be practically lost. Furthermore, allowing discovery
to continue as to all parties but Defendant Craig is not a reasonable option
here. "It is quite likely that, when discovery as to the other parties
proceeds, it would prove necessary for [Defendant Craig] and [his] counsel to
participate in the process to ensure the case does not develop in a
misleading or slanted way that causes prejudice to [his] position." Id.
2