Westcott v. Winter et al

Filing 40

ORDER granting 31 motion to stay. Signed on October 4, 2019, by District Judge Greg Kays. (Law clerk) Modified on 10/4/2019 (Law clerk). A copy of this order was mailed to Plaintiff's new address on October 4, 2019.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
KAREN RAY WESTCOTT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SHELLY WINTER,
MELINDA ADAMS,
TIMOTHY CARLSON,
KIP KIESO,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:19-cv-6036-DGK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY
This lawsuit arises out of Plaintiff’s claims that while he was on parole in Missouri for
“numerous class C and D felonies associated with sex crimes,” he was required to take, and pay
for, polygraph exams that were administered by Defendant Kieso and others in an abusive way
which violated his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Now before the Court is Defendant Kieso’s Motion to Stay Case (Doc. 31) while the district
court considers his motion to dismiss based on pure questions of law, no fact.
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to
control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); Contracting Nw.,
Inc. v. City of Fredericksburg, 713 F.2d 382, 387 (8th Cir. 1983) (holding district court has the
“inherent power” to stay litigation “to control its docket, conserve judicial resources, and provide
for a just determination of the cases pending before it”). A stay should be entered only where it is
a proper exercise of the court’s discretion, Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 276 (2005), and the

proponent of the stay bears the burden of establishing the need for a stay. Nken v. Holder, 556
U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009).
In the present case, the Court finds both parties will benefit by a stay because if the Court
grants the motion neither party will have wasted time or money in discovery. Further, Plaintiff
will not be prejudiced by any delay in pursuing discovery, because the Court will rule promptly
once both parties have had an opportunity to brief the issue.
The motion is GRANTED. This case is STAYED until the Court orders otherwise.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: October 4, 2019

/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2