Mutschler v. Downs et al
Filing
52
MEMORANDUM In the instant case, Defendant Downs has seeks the dismissal of the above matter based upon Plaintiffs failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. If the motion is granted, surely any further discovery requests will be moot. Moreover, Plaintiff has not opposed this motion. As such, both judicial economy and the lack of prejudice to Plaintiff at this stage warrant that the stay be granted until the pending motion for summary judgment is resolved. A separate Order shall issue. Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 3/29/17. (jfg)
I
!
f
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
I
~
!
l
f
i
[
TONY L. MUTSCHLER,
Plaintiff
Civil No. 3:15-cv-2015
(Judge Mariani)
v.
CAPT. S.M. DOWNS,
Defendant
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Tony L. Mutschler, an inmate currently confined at the State Correctional
Institution at Coal Township, Pennsylvania, filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
ยง 1983. The matter proceeds on an amended complaint against one defendant, Sean
Downs, a correctional officer at Mutschler's former place of confinement, the State
Correctional Institution at Frackville. (Doc. 26.) On March 8, 2017, Defendant filed a motion
for summary judgment based on Plaintiffs failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
(Doc. 46.) Plaintiff has filed a motion to enlarge the time to oppose this motion. (Doc. 51.)
Also pending is Defendant's motion to stay any further discovery pending the resolution of
his motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 49.) Both motions will be granted.
It is well established that the court has broad discretion to stay discovery pending
resolution of a potentially dispositive motion. In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Prod. Liab.
Litig., 264 F.3d 344, 365 (3d Cir. 2001). A stay is proper where the likelihood is that the
I
I
f
motion may result in the narrowing or outright elimination of discovery and this outweighs
any likely harm from the delay. 19th Sf. Baptist Church v. Sf. Peters Episcopal Church, 190
F.R.D. 345, 349 (E.D. Pa. 200). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
has found that a motion to stay discovery is appropriate when, if the pending dispositive
motion is granted, it would make discovery futile. See Mann v. Brenner, 375 F. App'x 232,
r
I
,
!
1
I
239-40 (3d Cir. 2010).
In the instant case, Defendant Downs has seeks the dismissal of the above matter
!
based upon Plaintiffs failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. If the motion is
I
granted, surely any further discovery requests will be moot. Moreover, Plaintiff has not
t
opposed this motion. As such, both judicial economy and the lack of prejudice to Plaintiff at
I
!
this stage warrant that the stay be granted until the pending motion for summary judgment
I
I
I
is resolved.
I
A separate Order shall issue.
I
[
I
Date: March]?j ,2017
!
I
t
I
J
!
I
2
I
I
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?