Rose v. Hancock et al

Filing 55

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER finding as moot 44 Motion to Stay ; finding as moot 46 Motion to Stay ; granting 51 Motion to Lift Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 3/12/13. (jlw) Modified on 3/12/2013 by changing description of document 51 from motion to stay to motion to lift stay (jlw).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION

CHANDLER RUSSELL ROSE,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

v.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00110-DB-DBP

K. HANCOCK, et al.

District Judge Dee Benson

Defendants.

I.

Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

INTRODUCTION

This civil rights matter was referred to the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Plaintiff is
Chandler Russell Rose (“Plaintiff”). Defendants are the following Clearfield, Utah Police
Department officers: (1) K. Hancock; (2) Jason Richards; and (3) J. Jackson. On October 10,
2012, this Court stayed discovery in this civil case until the related criminal proceedings against
Plaintiff concluded. (Docket No. 36.)
Before the Court are the following motions: (1) Defendants’ motion to stay civil proceedings;
(2) Defendants’ motion to stay briefing on Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment; and
(3) Plaintiff’s motion to lift the October 10, 2012 stay.
II.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO LIFT STAY

On December 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to lift the October 10, 2012 discovery stay
because criminal proceedings had concluded. (Dkt. No. 51.) That is, on December 7, 2012,
Plaintiff entered a plea in abeyance to class B misdemeanor underage drinking. (Id. at 1.)

Page 1 of 3

Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s motion. See DuCivR 7-1(d) (“Failure to respond
timely to a motion may result in the court’s granting the motion without further notice.”).
Because Plaintiff’s criminal proceedings have concluded, and because Defendants failed to
respond to Plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay, the Court GRANTS the motion. (Dkt. No. 51.)
III.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

On November 14, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to stay civil proceedings in their entirety
pending the ongoing state criminal proceedings against Plaintiff. 1 Because the criminal
proceedings have concluded, the Court finds this motion MOOT. (Dkt. No. 44.)
IV.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On October 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 37.)
On October 12, 2012, District Judge Dee Benson granted Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his
partial summary judgment motion. (Dkt. No. 42.) Nevertheless, on November 14, 2012,
Defendants filed a motion to stay briefing on Plaintiff’s partial summary judgment motion (Dkt.
No. 46) until the Court ruled on Defendants’ motion to stay civil proceedings in their entirety
(Dkt. No. 44). Because Plaintiff withdrew his October 10, 2012 partial summary judgment
motion, and because this Court ruled on Defendants’ motion to stay above, the Court finds
Defendants’ motion to stay briefing MOOT. (Dkt. No. 46.)
V.

ORDERS

For the reasons above, the Court issues the following ORDERS:
Plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay in this case is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 51.)
Defendants’ motion to stay civil proceedings in their entirety is MOOT. (Dkt. No. 44.)

1

The Court’s October 10, 2012 order merely stayed discovery in this civil proceeding. (Dkt. No.
36.)
Page 2 of 3

Defendants’ motion to stay briefing on Plaintiff’s October 10, 2012 motion for partial
summary judgment is MOOT. (Dkt. No. 46.)
Dated this 12th day of March, 2013.

Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3