Alonso v. Barham et al

Filing 50

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 41 Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay. Plaintiff may again move to lift the stay after the state-court hearing on Defendant Barham's competency occurs. (jcm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JUAN CARLOS ALONSO,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 16-cv-0903 MV/SMV

JULIE BARHAM and
CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO LIFT STAY
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay [Doc. 41], filed on
January 11, 2019. Defendant Children, Youth and Families Department responded on January 28,
2019. [Doc. 44]. Defendant Julie Barham responded on February 1, 2019. [Doc. 45]. Plaintiff
replied on February 5, 2019. [Doc. 47]. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Discovery in this matter is stayed until further order of the Court. [Doc. 35] at 1. The
Court originally stayed discovery because a New Mexico state court stayed an underlying criminal
proceeding with overlapping factual allegations. [Doc. 21]; see [Doc. 20]; [Doc. 20-1]. The state
court stayed its case pending resolution of Defendant Barham’s competency to stand trial. See
[Doc. 28-1] at 1–3; [Doc. 45] at 1. The original request for a stay in this Court was unopposed and
on November 16, 2016, the Court stayed proceedings for 60 days. [Doc. 21]. After three
additional continuances of the stay, discovery is currently stayed pending further order of this
Court. [Doc. 24]; [Doc. 27]; [Doc. 35].

Plaintiff moved to lift the stay on January 11, 2019. [Doc. 41]. The Court ordered
Defendant Barham to file a status report because “[a] status hearing on the competency issue [in
state court] is scheduled for February 19, 2019.” [Doc. 45] at 1 (alterations in original). Defendant
Barham filed her status report on February 21, 2019. [Doc. 49]. In it, she informs the Court that
“the February 19, 2019 hearing was cancelled due to weather conditions. As of this writing, the
status hearing has not yet been rescheduled.” [Doc. 49] at 1.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay [Doc. 41] is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may again move to lift the stay after the state-court
hearing on Defendant Barham’s competency occurs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________________
STEPHAN M. VIDMAR
United States Magistrate Judge

2