(PC) Grant v. Borges ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUSSELL S. GRANT, Case No. 1:20-cv-00908-JLT-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY MERITS-BASED 13 v. DISCOVERY AND MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 14 D. RIOS, (ECF No. 42) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Russell Grant (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to 19 stay merits-discovery and to modify the scheduling order. (ECF No. 42). 20 On January 10, 2022, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s 21 failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 41). On that same day, Defendant filed a 22 motion to stay merits-based discovery and to vacate the non-expert discovery, reporting on the 23 viability of a settlement conference, and dispositive motion deadlines pending resolution of the 24 motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 42). Plaintiff did not file an opposition or any other 25 response to Defendant’s motion to stay. 26 District courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to stay a case. See Landis v. N. 27 Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power 28 inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time 1 and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”). The moving party has the burden to show 2 that a stay is appropriate. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). In determining whether to 3 enter a stay, the court must consider the competing interests at stake, including (1) “the possible 4 damage which may result from the granting of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party 5 may suffer in being required to go forward,” and (3) “the orderly course of justice measured in 6 terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be 7 expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) 8 (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). 9 Applying the relevant factors to this case, the Court finds that Defendant’s unopposed 10 motion to stay merits-based discovery and vacate deadlines should be granted. Defendant’s 11 motion for summary judgment may resolve the case in its entirely. Without resolving the 12 exhaustion issue, the Court has reviewed the pending motion for summary judgment, and it 13 appears to present a colorable defense based on exhaustion. According to Defendant’s motion, 14 the incident occurred on December 6, 2019, and Plaintiff had thirty days to submit an appeal 15 regarding the issue. On August 14, 2020, Plaintiff’s institution of confinement received a three- 16 page letter dated January 7, 2020, that was addressed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 17 (ECF No. 41-2, p. 4). The letter included allegations regarding the December 6, 2019 incident, 18 and so was treated as a grievance even though it was not filed on the proper form. (Id.). 19 However, the grievance was canceled as untimely because it was not filed within thirty days of 20 the incident. (Id.). Moreover, Plaintiff appealed the cancelation after he filed this action. (Id. at 21 10). 22 Based on the foregoing, the parties’ and the Court’s time and resources will be conserved 23 by a stay. Additionally, the stay will not impose undue hardship or inequity to the parties at this 24 stage in the case. Thus, the Court will stay all discovery and pending deadlines in the case and 25 will reset any necessary deadlines following a final ruling on the motion for summary judgment if 26 Plaintiff’s claim proceeds. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. Defendant’s motion to stay discovery and vacate deadlines (ECF No. 42) is 1 GRANTED; and 2 2. Merits-based discovery! is stayed and the non-expert discovery, reporting on the 3 viability of a settlement conference, and dispositive motion deadlines are vacated. 4 The Court will lift the stay and reset these deadlines, if necessary, after the District 5 Judge issues an order on Defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment (ECF 6 No. 41). 7 g IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ February 22, 2022 [see heey □ 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' The Court notes that it is not staying discovery on the issue of exhaustion of available administrative 28 | remedies.