Troupe v. Woods et al

Filing 42

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 31 Motion to Stay signed by Judge David W. Christel. All discovery is stayed in this case pending further order from this Court. However, the parties are not prohibited from filing motions or other documents.**3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(David Troupe, Prisoner ID: 765714)(MET)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

DAVID TROUPE,

9
10
11
12

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-05077-RBL-DWC
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
MOTION TO STAY

v.
EDWARD WOODS, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

Plaintiff David Troupe, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action

15 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently pending before the Court are: (1) Defendants’ Motion to
16 Dismiss Action as Frivolous and Revoke Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis Status (“Motion to
17 Dismiss”) Dkt. 26; and (2) Defendants’ Motion to Stay Case Pending Decision on Defendants’
18 Motion to Revoke Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis Status and Dismiss this Action as Frivolous
19 (“Motion to Stay”). Dkt. 31. This Order addresses only Defendants’ Motion to Stay.
20

On April 22, 2016, Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss, alleging, in part, Plaintiff has

21 failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Dkt. 26. After filing the Motion to Dismiss, on
22 April 22, 2016, Defendants filed the Motion to Stay seeking a stay of the proceedings until the
23 Court rules on the Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 31. Specifically, Defendants ask the Court to stay the
24
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO
STAY - 1

1 proceedings as follows: (1) prevent any party from engaging in discovery and (2) prevent any
2 party from filing motions or other documents unrelated to the Motion to Dismiss. Id.
3

A. Discovery

4

Defendants request the Court issue an order preventing any party from engaging in

5 discovery until the Court rules on the Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 31. The Court has broad
6 discretionary powers to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.
7 1988). Upon showing of good cause, the Court may deny or limit discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P.
8 26(c). A court may relieve a party of the burdens of discovery while a dispositive motion is
9 pending. DiMartini v. Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922 (9th Cir. 1989), amended at 906 F.2d 465 (9th Cir.
10 1990); Rae v. Union Bank, 725 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1984).
11

The ruling on the Motion to Dismiss may resolve all of Plaintiff’s claims. Thus, a stay of

12 discovery while the motion is pending will serve the ends of justice by the parties’ and Court
13 avoiding the use of resources which may ultimately not be required. Further, a stay will not
14 prejudice Plaintiff as the Complaint must stand on its face and the ruling on the Motion to
15 Dismiss could impact the scope of discovery.
16

B. Filing Motions and Other Documents

17

Defendants also request the Court enter an order preventing any party from filing motions

18 or other documents unrelated to the Motion to Dismiss until the Court rules on the Motion to
19 Dismiss. Dkt. 31. Preventing the parties from filing motions and other documents unrelated to
20 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is an overbroad restriction at this time. Plaintiff has not burdened
21 Defendants with an excessive number of motions in this case. Thus, Defendants have not shown
22 an order prohibiting the parties from filing motions or other documents will meet the ends of
23 justice.
24
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO
STAY - 2

1

C. Conclusion

2

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion is granted-in-part and denied-in-part as follows: All

3 discovery is stayed in this case pending further order from this Court. However, the parties are
4 not prohibited from filing motions or other documents.
5

Dated this 31st day of May, 2016.

A

6
7

David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO
STAY - 3