Hoosier v. Liu et al

Filing 33

ORDER GRANTING AS UNOPPOSED Defendants' 27 Motion to Stay--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DWAYNE HOOSIER,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 2:16-10688
District Judge Denise Page Hood
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

WENDY LIU, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING AS UNOPPOSED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
STAY DISCOVERY ON ALL ISSUES EXCEPT PLAINTIFF’S
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (DE 27) AND
SETTING DEADLINES FOR SIMILAR DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the motion by
Defendants Wendy Liu, N.P., Shi-Yu Tan, MD, Rickey Coleman, M.D., Steven
Bergman, M.D., Badawi Abdellatif, MD, and Kim Farris (collectively “the moving
Defendants”) to stay discovery on all issues except whether Plaintiff exhausted his
administrative remedies. (DE 27.) For the reasons that follow, the moving
Defendants’ motion is GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a state prisoner who is proceeding in forma pauperis, brings this

lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging claims of deliberate indifference to his
medical needs, leading to a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis and complications from

medications prescribed to him. (DE 1.) He names eleven Defendants in his
complaint, one of which is listed as Jane Doe, and all appear to be medical
professionals who treated him during his various illnesses. To date, seven of the
eleven Defendants have been served and filed an answer on May 26, 2016. (DE
22.)
The moving Defendants filed this motion to stay discovery on July 21, 2016.
(DE 27.) In the motion, those Defendants ask the Court to stay discovery on all
matters except whether Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies until
the Court resolves a motion for “partial summary judgment on the pleadings”
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) filed by Defendants Bergman, Coleman, Liu and
Tan. (DE 26.) I issued an order on July 22, 2016 which required Plaintiff to
respond to the motion to stay and the motion for summary judgment by September
6, 2016. (DE 28.) Plaintiff submitted a response to the motion for partial
summary judgment on the pleadings (DE 30), but did not respond to the motion to
stay.
II.

ANALYSIS
The Rule 12(c) motion alleges that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies on all claims against Defendants Bergman, Coleman and
Tan, and failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding most claims
against Defendant Liu. The moving Defendants thus assert that judicial economy
2 

and efficiency are best served by staying discovery until the Rule 12(c) motion is
resolved because granting that motion would clarify, and potentially reduce, both
the number of viable claims and Defendants.
The Court expresses no opinion at this time on the merits of the Rule 12(c)
motion. However, the Court agrees with the moving Defendants that staying
discovery until the Rule 12(c) motion is resolved would be an efficient way to
reduce or eliminate any unnecessary usage of resources. See, e.g., Chavous v.
Dist. Of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 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.’”)
(quoting Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 84 F.R.D. 278, 282
(D.Del.1979)); Cromer v. Braman, 2007 WL 3346675, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 7,
2007) (quoting Chavous and staying discovery pending resolution of dispositive
motions based upon allegations that a pro se plaintiff failed to exhaust
administrative remedies).
Moreover, LR 7.1(e)(2)(B) requires a party to respond to a nondispositive
motion within fourteen days. That deadline has passed without Plaintiff
responding to the motion to stay, meaning the motion may be deemed unopposed.

3 

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to stay discovery pending resolution
of the Rule 12(c) motion (DE 27) is GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED. All
discovery in this action shall be stayed pending the Court’s resolution of the
extant Rule 12(c) motion, except discovery related to the limited question of
whether Plaintiff properly and fully exhausted his administrative remedies.
Additionally, the Court hereby orders that any and all additional dispositive
motions based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies shall be filed on or
before December 9, 2016 or they shall be barred.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2016

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on November 10, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

4