(PC) Moss v. Bowermen ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMY MOSS, Case No. 1:18-cv-01191-NONE-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY 13 v. (ECF No. 34) 14 BOWERMEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Amy Moss (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 19 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Gaona1 and Mount for excessive force in 20 violation of the Eighth Amendment. 21 On February 11, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds 22 that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies. (ECF No. 33.) 23 Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay merits-based discovery pending 24 a decision on their motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff has not had an 25 opportunity to file an opposition with the Court, but the Court finds an opposition is unnecessary. 26 The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 27 28 1 Erroneously sued as “Gayona.” 1 The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 2 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North 3 American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of 4 establishing the need to stay the action. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708. 5 Defendants argue that the pending motion for summary judgment will potentially dispose 6 of the entire case, the Court does not require additional information to decide the motion, and the 7 expenditure of resources required to respond to merits-based discovery will be needless if the 8 Court grants the summary judgment motion. Defendants further note that Plaintiff has already 9 propounded merits-based discovery, but has not served any exhaustion-based discovery. 10 Defendants therefore request that the Court also relieve the parties of any obligation to respond to 11 merits-based discovery, including requests already served by Plaintiff, until after a final order is 12 issued on the pending summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 34.) 13 The Court finds that Defendants have met the burden of showing good cause to stay all 14 merits-based discovery in this matter. Proceeding with discovery for defendants and claims that 15 may be disposed of by the pending summary judgment motion will result in unnecessary motion 16 practice, litigation costs, and a waste of judicial resources. If Defendants do not prevail on their 17 motion, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a modest delay in proceeding with merits-based 18 discovery. 19 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to stay merits-based pending the disposition of their 20 motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 34), is HEREBY GRANTED. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: February 12, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28