Bell v. Voight et al

Filing 40

ORDER denying plaintiff Mr. Bell's 28 Motion for Discovery; granting defendants' 33 Motion to Stay; and denying plaintiff Mr. Bell's 36 Motion to Extend. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Veronica L. Duffy on 01/15/15. (Duffy, Veronica)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SHANE DOUGLAS BELL,

4:14-CV-04111-LLP

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER:

WILLIAM VOIGHT, CORRECTIONS
OFFICER AT SOUTH DAKOTA STATE
PENITENTIARY, INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JEREMY
WENDLING, CORRECTIONS OFFICER
SGT. AT SOUTH DAKOTA STATE
PENITENTIARY, INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; SAMUEL YOST,
CORRECTIONS OFFICER, CPL. AT
SOUTH DAKOTA STATE
PENITENTIARY, INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JESSICA COOK,
UNIT MANAGER AT SOUTH DAKOTA
STATE PENITENTIARY, INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JOHN DOE
#1, CORRECTIONS OFFICER AT
SOUTH DAKOTA STATE
PENITENTIARY, INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DARIN YOUNG,
WARDEN AT SOUTH DAKOTA STATE
PENITENTIARY, INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND JOHN DOE
#2, CORRECTIONS OFFICER AT
SOUTH DAKOTA STATE
PENITENTIARY, INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY;

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR STAY
DOCKET NO. 33; AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
DOCKET NO. 28; AND
MOTION TO EXTEND
TIME FOR DISCOVERY
DOCKET NO. 36

Defendants.

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Shane Bell’s complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants violated his
constitutional rights. See Docket No. 1. The district court, the Honorable
Lawrence L. Piersol, referred this case to this magistrate judge for

determination of pretrial motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and the
October 16, 2014, standing order of the Honorable Karen E. Schreier.
Defendants have filed a motion to stay discovery until such time as the
court decides the issue of whether defendants are entitled to immunity from
suit pursuant to the qualified immunity doctrine. See Docket No. 33. Mr. Bell
resists this motion by arguing the merits: i.e. he argues that defendants are
not, in fact, entitled to qualified immunity. See Docket No. 39. Also pending
are motions by Mr. Bell for discovery and to extend time for discovery. See
Docket Nos. 28 and 36. There is presently no motion before the court which
asks for a determination on the merits as to whether defendants are entitled to
qualified immunity.
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects prison officials not just from
ultimate liability in a suit, but from the litigation itself, including the process of
discovery. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). Courts have
“’repeatedly . . . stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the
earliest possible stage in litigation.’ ” O’Neil v. City of Iowa City, 496 F.3d 915,
917 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001)).
Defendants state an intent to place the issue of qualified immunity before the
court. The court finds defendants’ motion to stay discovery appropriate and
will grant it. See Contracting NW, Inc. v. City of Fredericksburg, Iowa, 713
F.2d 382, 387 (8th Cir. 1983) (“[T]he district court ha[s] the inherent power to
grant [a] stay in order to control its docket, conserve judicial resources, and

provide for a just determination of the cases pending before it.” (citation
omitted)).
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for discovery and to extend the time
for discovery [Docket Nos. 28 & 36] are denied. It is further
ORDERED that defendants’ motion to stay discovery [Docket No. 33] is
granted. Defendants have until March 2, 2015 to submit a dispositive motion
on the issue of qualified immunity. Plaintiff Mr. Bell must submit a response
to such motion within 21 days following service of the motion on him.
Defendants shall thereafter have 14 days to file a reply thereto.
DATED this 15th day of January, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

VERONICA L. DUFFY
United States Magistrate Judge