Hudson v. Cahill

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 16 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 6/23/2015. Mailed to pro se party Max Hudson by regular and certified mail (mmg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MAX GENE HUDSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-2319-JAR

MATT CAHILL, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
The pro se plaintiff, Max Gene Hudson, brings this lawsuit against various U.S.
Marshals, alleging his civil rights have been violated (ECF doc. 1). Defendants filed a
motion to stay discovery (ECF doc. 16), pending the resolution of their motion to dismiss
or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The motion is granted.
D. Kan. Rule 7.4(b) provides “[i]f a responsive brief or memorandum is not filed
within the Rule 6.1(d) time requirements, the court will consider and decide the motion as
an uncontested motion.

Ordinarily, the court will grant the motion without further

notice.” The instant motion was filed on June 5, 2015. Under D. Kan. Rule 6.1(d)(1),
any responses were required to be filed within 14 days, i.e., by June 19, 2015. No
response has been filed. The court considers the instant motion unopposed. As such, the
motion to stay discovery is granted.
Although unopposed, the court will address the merits briefly.

Defendants

contend that a stay of discovery is appropriate because their motion to dismiss asserts that
this court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims. District courts have broad discretion

15-2319-JAR-16.docx

1

to stay proceedings.1 It is appropriate to stay discovery until a pending motion is decided
“where the case is likely to be finally concluded as a result of the ruling theron; where the
facts sought through uncompleted discovery would not affect the resolution of the
motion; or where discovery on all issues of the broad complaint would be wasteful and
burdensome.”2 Based on these factors, the court finds a stay is appropriate.
Plaintiff is informed that within 14 days after he is served with a copy of this
order, he may, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and D. Kan. Rule 72.1.4(a), file objections
to this order by filing a motion for review of this order by the presiding U.S. district
judge. A party must file any objections within the 14-day period if the party wants to
have appellate review of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated June 23, 2015, at Kansas City, Kansas.

s/ James P. O’Hara
James P. O’Hara
U.S. Magistrate Judge

1
2

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 707 (1997).
Wolf v. United States, 157 F.R.D. 494, 495 (D. Kan. 1994).

15-2319-JAR-16.docx

2