Grundstein v. State of Ohio et al

Filing 16

OPINION AND ORDER granting 13 Defendants' Motion to Stay Further Pleading. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 3/9/2012. (er1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Robert Grundstein,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:11-CV-624
Judge Watson
Magistrate Judge King

State of Ohio, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, challenges the constitutionality of
the Ohio’s vexatious litigator statute,

O.R.C. § 2323.52, and the Ohio

Supreme Court’s vexatious litigator rule, Ohio S.Ct.Prac.R. 14.5(B).
Plaintiff alleges that the application of the law and the rule to him has
unlawfully foreclosed to him all access to Ohio courts.1

Named as

defendants are the Ohio Attorney General and the Chief Justice and
Associate Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court.

This matter is now before

the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Further Pleading, Doc. No. 13.
Plaintiff opposes that motion.

Response to Defense Motion in Opposition

and Motion to Stay, Doc. No. 15.
In response to the Amended Complaint,2 defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss, Doc. No. 6, which challenges this Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims, as well as the legal sufficiency
of those

claims.

thereafter filed

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6).

Plaintiff

a motion to strike the Motion to Dismiss, Response and

1
Although plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, Doc. No. 9, insists that this
action challenges only Ohio S.Ct.Prac.R. 14.5(B), the Complaint also expressly
“asks that all enforcement of all rulings against [plaintiff] pursuant to Ohio
Revised Code Section[] 2323.52 (vexatious litigator statute) be enjoined.”
Complaint, p. 2.
2

The Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 3, merely corrects certain alleged
typographical errors in the original Complaint, Doc. No. 1.

Motion to Strike, Doc. No. 9, as well as a motion to further amend the
complaint to join the Clerk of the Ohio Supreme Court as an additional
defendant.

Motion to Amend Complaint, Join Party and Consolidate

Documents, etc., Doc. No. 11.
The Motion to Stay Further Pleading asks that “the Court stay any
further pleading by either party pending resolution of the jurisdictional
arguments raised in” the Motion to Dismiss.

Id . at 2. Federal trial

courts possess the inherent authority to manage their own dockets, see
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997), and a request for a stay
is ordinarily committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.
Chrysler Corp. v. Fedders Corp., 643 F.2d 1229 (6th Cir. 1981). In
exercising that discretion, a court must take into account both the needs
of the litigants and the broader societal interests implicated by the
litigation and the request for a stay.

Williams v. New Day Farms, LLC,

2010 WL 3522397, *1 (S.D. Ohio September 7, 2010)(citing Marrese v.
American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, 706 F.2d 1488, 1493 (7
1983)).

th

Cir.

Considering those factors, the Court concludes that a stay of

this action pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss is warranted.
The Motion to Dismiss, which does not depend on discovery for
resolution and which is potentially dispositive of the entire litigation,
is

now

ripe

for

consideration

by

the Court.

Plaintiff has not

articulated any persuasive reason why he would be prejudiced by a stay
of the proceedings pending resolution of that motion.

Under these

circumstances, continued litigation of the action, which necessarily
demands the attention of all the Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court, does
not

serve

the

broader

interests

of

society.

The Court therefore

concludes that a stay of proceedings pending resolution of the Motion to
Dismiss is warranted.

2

WHEREUPON Defendants’ Motion to Stay Further Pleading, Doc. No. 13,
is GRANTED.
All further proceedings are STAYED pending resolution of defendants’
Motion to Dismiss.

s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
March 9, 2012
(Date)

3