Alexander v. Hood et al

Filing 57

ORDER denying 55 Motion for Relief from Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 3/20/17. (ncb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION

EFFORT ALEXANDER

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CAUSE NO. 3:16CV00202-GHD-JMV

JIM HOOD, Attorney General
for State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANT

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion [55] Under Rule 60(b) Of FRCP For
Relief From The Order Staying Certain Proceedings Pending Ruling On Defendant’s Motion To
Dismiss. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied.
As Plaintiff correctly notes, this court, acting pursuant to Local Rule 16 (b)(3)(A)-(C),
stayed this case pending a decision on the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, qualified immunity, and Eleventh Amendment immunity. According to Plaintiff,
the stay should be lifted because the portion of the motion raising the jurisdictional defense was
not asserted until after the case management conference (CMC). Again, Plaintiff is correct that
the jurisdictional defense was not raised before the CMC and that failure typically waives the
stay provision of the local rule. However, pursuant to the same local rule, raising an immunity
defense after the CMC does not result in a waiver of the stay provision; and, it is on this basis the
court relied in staying this case.
As concerns the balance of Plaintiff’s arguments, they appear to concern his view of the
merits of the immunity and jurisdictional defenses raised in the motion to dismiss. These matters
are the province of the district judge to determine in ruling on the pending motion to dismiss. If,
as Plaintiff suggests, the district judge determines the defenses are without merit, the stay will be

lifted. On the other hand, if it is determined that the motion to dismiss is meritorious, then the
court and litigants will have avoided the unnecessary expense of judicial resources and time and
money, respectively. In conclusion, the court is not persuaded that Plaintiff has brought forth
any good cause to justify lifting the mandated stay in this case. Accordingly, the motion is
denied.
SO ORDERED this 20th day of March, 2017.

/s/ Jane M. Virden
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE