Bauer v. Glaser et al

Filing 26

ORDER granting 24 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 8/31/2016. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JEREMY BAUER,

4:16-CV-04055-KES
Plaintiff,

vs.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

JACOB GLASER,
Defendant.
Plaintiff, Jeremy Bauer, an inmate at the South Dakota State
Penitentiary, filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docket 1. The
court screened Bauer’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and directed
service of the complaint. Docket 9. Defendant moved for summary judgment,
arguing that Bauer failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies and
that the case should be dismissed. Docket 16. Defendant now moves to stay
discovery until the court determines whether Bauer exhausted his
administrative remedies.
Pursuant to Rule 26(c), “the court has discretion to stay discovery on
other issues until the critical issue has been decided.” 8A Charles Alan Wright,
Arthur R. Miller, and Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure
§ 2040 (3d ed.). A stay of discovery is within the district court's discretion and
is reviewed by the appellate court for an abuse of that discretion. Steinbuch v.
Cutler, 518 F.3d 580, 588 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Lakin v. Prudential Sec., Inc.,

348 F.3d 704, 713 (8th Cir. 2003)); see also Maune v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec.
Workers, 83 F.3d 959, 963 (8th Cir. 1996) (upholding the district court's
granting of a party's request to stay discovery). Because the exhaustion issue
may be dispositive, the court grants defendant’s motion to stay discovery.
Thus, it is
ORDERED that defendant’s motion for protective order (Docket 24) is
granted. Discovery will be stayed until the court determines whether plaintiff
has properly exhausted his administrative remedies. If summary judgment is
denied, the stay on discovery will be lifted.
Dated August 31, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2