Scott v. Van Hook

Filing 55

ORDER STAYING CASE, by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. This case is stayed in the interests of justice and judicial economy and efficiency. Plaintiff's pending Motions (Dkt. 45 , 49 , 50 ) are denied without prejudice. Motions will not be considered by the Court during the stay. (GMR- cc: pltf)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 RICHARD ROY SCOTT, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:16-CV-05785-RBL-DWC ORDER STAYING THE CASE v. VAN HOOK, Defendant. The District Court referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. In the Complaint, Plaintiff Richard Roy Scott alleges, in part, his constitutional rights are being violated because he is forced to drink contaminated water at the Special Commitment Center (“SCC”). Dkt. 3. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s case and determined this case shall be stayed in the interests of justice and judicial economy and efficiency. Plaintiff’s pending Motions (Dkt. 45, 49, 50) are denied without prejudice. “A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court under Landis v. North American Co.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)); Ali v. Trump, 2017 WL 24 ORDER STAYING THE CASE - 1 1 1057645, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2017) (“Courts have the power to consider stays sua 2 sponte.”). “The power to stay a case is ‘incidental to the power inherent in every court to control 3 the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, 4 and for litigants.’” Halliwell v. A-T Sols., 2014 WL 4472724, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2014) 5 (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 254). The Ninth Circuit has held: 6 7 8 9 A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case. This rule applies whether the separate proceedings are judicial, administrative, or arbitral in character, and does not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily controlling of the action before the court. In such cases the court may order a stay of the action pursuant to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a just determination of the cases pending before it. 10 Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863–64 (9th Cir. 1979) (internal 11 citations omitted). 12 To determine if a stay is appropriate, the Court should weigh the “competing interests 13 which will be effected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay,” including “the possible damage 14 which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer 15 in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the 16 simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to 17 result from a stay.” See Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110 (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 18 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). 19 The Court finds the interests of justice and judicial efficiency and economy warrant a stay 20 in this case. In this Court, the claims of approximately 200 Plaintiffs alleging constitutional 21 violations arising from the potable water at the SCC have been consolidated in a related case. See 22 Malone v. Strong, 3:16-cv-5284-RBL-DWC (“Related Case”). An answer has not been filed in 23 Malone and, therefore, a scheduling order has not been entered and discovery has not begun. In 24 ORDER STAYING THE CASE - 2 1 the current case, a scheduling order has been entered and the discovery period is open. See Dkt. 2 21. The Related Case and the current case, which are similar in law and fact, are at different 3 procedural postures, which may impact over 200 Plaintiffs. Further, Plaintiff has case 4 management orders which restrict his ability to conduct discovery. If the Court stays Plaintiff’s 5 case pending the filing of a scheduling order in the Related Case, discovery can be addressed 6 efficiently and economically for all claims arising from the potable water at the SCC. The Court 7 can also direct that Plaintiff receive the necessary discovery without burdening the litigants or 8 the Court. 9 For the above stated reasons, this entire matter is stayed pending further order from this 10 Court. The Court anticipates the stay will be lifted when a pretrial scheduling order is entered in 11 the Related Case. Motions will not be considered by the Court during the stay. Plaintiff’s 12 pending Motions (45, 49, 50), which relate to discovery, are denied without prejudice. 13 Dated this 9th day of May, 2017. A 14 15 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER STAYING THE CASE - 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?