Mora v. Chapa

Filing 49

ORDER denying without prejudice 46 Motion to Stay Discovery.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Jason B Libby) Parties notified.(lcayce, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
GERALD MORA,
Plaintiff,
VS.
JOSE CHAPA, et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

June 10, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-343

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
Pending is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery. (D.E. 46). The motion is
DENIED without prejudice for the reasons set forth below.
Plaintiff Gerald Mora is a Texas inmate appearing pro se in this civil rights action.
Plaintiff is a throat cancer survivor who alleges Texas Department of Criminal Justice
(TDCJ) personnel refused to provide him with tracheal stoma cleaning supplies. He
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under the Americans with Disabilities
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. The case has been assigned to the undersigned United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for case management, ruling on nondispositive motions and making recommendations to the District Judge on dispositive
motions.
Defendants filed the instant motion to stay discovery because they have asserted
the defense of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is a defense to liability and
immunity from suit. Swint v. Chambers Co. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 42, (1995); Mitchell
1/2

v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). Qualified immunity protects public officials from
“broad-ranging discovery that can be peculiarly disruptive of effective government.”
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 n. 5 (1987) quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457
U.S. 800, 817 (1982).
However, “qualified immunity does not shield government officials from all
discovery but only from discovery which is either avoidable or overly broad.” Lion
Boulos v. Wilson, 834 F.2d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Wicks v. Miss. State Emp’t
Servs., 41 F.3d 991, 994 (5th Cir. 1995). Defendants’ motion indicates Plaintiff served
Defendants with Requests for Admission. However, there is no reference to any other
discovery or whether the Requests for Admission are overly broad or otherwise
burdensome. Further, this discovery or other limited discovery may be appropriate in
deciding the issue of qualified immunity. Based on the information presented in the
Defendants’ motion to stay, the undersigned finds that a complete stay of discovery is not
appropriate at this time.
Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (D.E. 46) is DENIED without
prejudice. Defendants may refile their motion to stay if they seek to present additional
information in support of their motion or alternatively if they seek an order specifically
limiting discovery to the issue of qualified immunity.
ORDERED this 10th day of June, 2016.
___________________________________
Jason B. Libby
United States Magistrate Judge
2/2