Chaten v. Vail et al

Filing 39

ORDER granting 37 Motion to stay discovery. All discovery is STAYED pending further order of this Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 1. On October 26, 2009, the court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, docketed his complaint, and ordered the Plaintiff to amend his complaint. Dkts., 4, 5, and 6. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on January 7, 2010. Dkt. 9. He alleges that Defendants violated his due process and equal protection rights when they held him in administrative segregation pending an ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY - 1 Before the Court is Defendants' motion to stay discovery of this matter pending resolution of their pending motion to dismiss. Dkt. 37. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that the motion should be granted. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 1, 2009, Plaintiff, Adrian Lewis Chaten, filed a proposed civil rights v. RONALD VAN BOENING, DANIEL FITZPATRICK, MIKE HINES, MICHAEL A. FLEMMING, RYAN T. DENZER, and GEORGE GILBERT, Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA ADRIAN LEWIS CHATEN, No. 09-5615 RJB/KLS Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

investigation that he attacked another inmate and following the investigation, placed him in an unidentified "program." Dkt. 9. On July 26, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that he has failed to allege the personal participation of Defendants Fitzpatrick and Van Boening. Dkt. 37. Defendants also request that all discovery be stayed pending the court's resolution of the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion to dismiss. DISCUSSION The court has broad discretionary powers to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Upon showing of good cause, the court may deny or limit discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26( c). A court may relieve a party of the burdens of discovery while a dispositive motion is pending. DiMartini v. Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922 (9th Cir. 1989), amended at 906 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1990) Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1984). The court agrees that the parties should not face the burden and expense of responding to discovery as to claims that may not survive the pleading stage. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: (1) (2) (3) Defendants' motion to stay discovery (Dkt. 37) is GRANTED. All discovery is STAYED pending further order of this Court. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants. 4th day of October, 2010.

DATED this

A
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY - 2

Karen L. Strombom United States Magistrate Judge