McCarty v. Roos et al

Filing 219

ORDER that 213 Motion to Stay is GRANTED with respect to 203 Plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. As a result, the Court has consulted with United States District Judge Mahan and 203 Plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/4/13. (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. 203, 213)

16

Pending before the Court is the Federal Defendants’ motion to stay their response to

17

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Docket No. 213; see also Docket No. 203 (cross motion

18

for summary judgment). The Court finds this matter properly resolved without oral argument. See

19

Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is hereby GRANTED.

20

I.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

State Defendants Hoerth, Masto and Saunders filed a motion to dismiss. Docket No. 136. The

1

Federal Defendants filed motions to dismiss challenging Plaintiff’s claims against the Federal

2

Defendants in both their individual and official capacities. Docket Nos. 156, 193. Those motions to

3

dismiss are pending.

4

II.

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

Defendants seek entry of a stay of Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. As noted

11

above, there are several pending motions to dismiss that have not yet been resolved. These motions

12

address threshold issues, such as the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s allegations to state a claim for relief,

13

personal jurisdiction, service, and qualified immunity. See Docket Nos. 156, 193. For the same

14

reasons articulated in Docket No. 209, the Court finds that the pending motions to dismiss should be

15

decided before Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. To that end, the motion to stay the

16

response deadline is hereby GRANTED.

17

III.

18
19
20

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Federal Defendants’ motion to stay is GRANTED. In

particular, the Court hereby rules as follows:
•

The motion to stay (Docket No. 213) is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s cross

21

motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 203). As a result, the Court has

22

consulted with United States District Judge Mahan and Plaintiff’s cross motion for

23

summary judgment (Docket No. 203) is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

DATED: October 4, 2013

26
27

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

28
2