McCarty v. Roos et al

Filing 209

ORDER that 180 and 181 Motions to Stay are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. FURTHER ORDERED that 167 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that 176 Motion for Court Intervention, construed as a Motion for a Settlement Conference, is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/27/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
ROBERT JOSEPH MCCARTY,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
JOHN V. ROOS, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:11-cv-01538-JCM-NJK
ORDER
(Docket Nos. 167, 176, 180, 181)

16

Pending before the Court are two of Defendants’ motions to stay this case pending resolution

17

of their motions to dismiss. Docket Nos. 180, 181.1 Plaintiff filed responses in opposition and some

18

Defendants filed a reply. Docket Nos. 183, 186, 195, 198. The Court finds this matter properly

19

resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed more fully below,

20

the motions to stay are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. In addition, for the reasons

21

discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 167) and for court

22

intervention (Docket No. 176) are hereby DENIED without prejudice.

23

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, appearing in this action pro se, brings claims related to the requirement that he

24
25

register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (“SORNA”) based on a foreign

26
27
28

1

An additional motion to stay was more recently filed, Docket No. 200, which the Court will
address through a separate order.

1

conviction he believes to have been unjustly obtained. Plaintiff has sued various Defendants from

2

both the government of the State of Nevada (“State Defendants”) and the Federal Government

3

(“Federal Defendants”). On March 19, 2013, United States District Judge James C. Mahan granted

4

Plaintiff’s request to file a second amended complaint, indicating that Defendants remained free to

5

challenge the sufficiency of the allegations through motions to dismiss. See Docket No. 132 at 2.

6

Such motions to dismiss were then filed. Docket Nos. 136, 156, 193. Those motions to dismiss are

7

pending.

8

II.

ANALYSIS

9

The Court has broad discretion in managing its docket. See, e.g., Landis v. N. American Co.,

10

299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (court has inherent power to “control the disposition of the causes on its

11

docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”). In exercising that

12

discretion, the Court is guided by the goals of securing the just, speedy and inexpensive resolution

13

of actions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

14

In light of the pendency of the motions to dismiss, Defendants seek entry of a stay of several

15

of Plaintiff’s pending motions. First, Defendants seek a stay of Plaintiff’s motion for summary

16

judgment. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment seeks “priority consideration” of that motion

17

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1657.2 The Act identifies certain civil actions (including habeas corpus

18

actions) as meriting swift resolution, but it also “grants a court wide discretion to manage its

19

docket.” Freedom Comms. Inc. v. F.D.I.C., 157 F.R.D. 485, 486 (C.D. Cal. 1994). Where a civil

20

action falls within the Act and merits rapid consideration, it does not necessarily follow that it will

21

be decided immediately. Instead, the Court generally follows the same course of litigation as in

22

other cases but is mindful of the need to resolve the case expeditiously. See id. at 487. Assuming

23
24
25
2

26
27
28

Plaintiff previously filed a “motion for priority summary disposition,” citing to § 1657.
Docket No. 79. In light of changes to the operative pleadings, Judge Mahan denied that motion as moot.
See Docket No. 132 at 3. Judge Mahan further indicated that Plaintiff could re-file the motion “as it
relates to the second amended complaint, at the appropriate stage of litigation, if he so chooses.” Id. at 3
n.2.
2

1

this case falls within the scope of § 1657,3 the Court finds that the most expeditious and efficient

2

manner for adjudicating Plaintiff’s claims is to first resolve the pending motions to dismiss. Once

3

the motions to dismiss are resolved, the parties can submit proposed plans for an appropriate

4

discovery period and a time-frame for filing motions for summary judgment. To that end, once the

5

pending motions to dismiss are decided, to the extent Plaintiff’s claims survive, the parties shall

6

submit a stipulated proposed discovery plan within 14 days therefrom outlining deadlines for any

7

discovery that needs to be conducted, as well as a deadline for filing motions for summary

8

judgment. In the interim, however, the Court finds Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to be

9

premature and GRANTS the motions to stay as they relate to that motion.

10

Defendants also seek a stay of Plaintiff’s motion for “court intervention.” Although not

11

entirely clear, it appears that this motion seeks the scheduling of a settlement conference, and the

12

Court so construes it.4 The Court generally does not grant motions for settlement conferences that

13

are opposed. In light of Defendants’ request to stay the deadline for responding to this motion, see,

14

e.g., Docket No. 181 at 3, it appears that they do not believe a settlement conference would be

15

fruitful at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a settlement conference (Docket No. 176) is

16

DENIED without prejudice and the motions to stay the response to this motion are DENIED as

17

moot. The parties are free to file a stipulation requesting a settlement conference at such time as

18

they believe it may be fruitful.

19

The newly-served State Defendants also seek a stay of their deadline to respond to the

20
3

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment cites to, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Docket
No. 197. Although the Court makes no ruling on the merits of the motion herein, it is not clear that the
relief sought is properly granted through a motion for habeas corpus. See, e.g., McNab v. Kok, 170 F.3d
1246, 1247 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that a § 2254 petitioner challenging Oregon’s sex-offender
registration law did not meet the “in custody” requirement because the law did not impose a significant
restraint on the petitioner’s liberty); Henry v. Lungren, 164 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 1999) (same
for California); Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1183-84 (9th Cir. 1998) (same for Washington).
For purposes of this order, however, the Court assumes habeas relief is properly available to Plaintiff
here and Section 1657 applies.
4

The Court construes the motion for court intervention (Docket No. 176) as a motion for a
settlement conference, because it refers to “alternative dispute resolution” and cites to the bankruptcy
local rule related to settlement conferences (Local Rule 9019).
3

1

Second Amended Complaint. See Docket No. 181 at 3. That request is DENIED. According to the

2

papers, these State Defendants’ responsive pleading deadline was September 13, 2013. Id. The

3

Court ORDERS that their responsive pleadings be filed no later than October 4, 2013.

4

III.

5
6
7

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ motions to stay are GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part. In particular, the Court hereby rules as follows:
•

Defendants’ motions to stay are GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s motion for

8

summary judgment. As a result, the Court has consulted with United States District

9

Judge Mahan and the motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 167) is hereby

10
11

DENIED without prejudice.
•

The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion for court intervention as a motion for a

12

settlement conference. Because it appears Defendants do not agree that a settlement

13

conference would be fruitful at this time, the motion for a settlement conference

14

(Docket No. 176) is hereby DENIED without prejudice. As a result, Defendants’

15

motions to stay as they relate to this motion are hereby DENIED as moot.

16

•

The newly-served State Defendants’ motion to stay the deadline to respond to the

17

Second Amended Complaint is hereby DENIED. The Court ORDERS that their

18

responsive pleadings be filed no later than October 4, 2013.

19
20

•

To the extent Plaintiff’s claims survive, the parties are ORDERED to submit
proposed discovery plans within 14 days after the motions to dismiss are decided.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

DATED: September 27, 2013

23
24

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
4