(PC) Penn v. Warden of Kern Valley State Prison ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARLIN PENN, Case No. 1:18-cv-01482-AWI-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY 13 v. (Doc. No. 67) 14 A. LUCAS, M. HERNANDEZ, and CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER. , 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to modify scheduling order and stay 18 discovery filed September 28, 2022. (Doc. No. 67). Plaintiff has not filed a response and the 19 time to do so has expired. 20 Plaintiff, a prisoner, is proceeding on his second amended complaint against Defendants 21 Lucas, Hernandez, and Pfeiffer as screened. (Doc. Nos. 19, 23, 25). On July 18, 2022, 22 Defendants Hernandez and Pfeiffer filed an exhaustion-based motion for summary judgment. 23 (Doc. No. 54). The motion is ripe but remains pending. The current Scheduling Order require 24 the parties to complete discovery by December 19, 2022 and file merits-based dispositive motions 25 by April 3, 2023. (Doc. No. 46). Defendants seek to stay discovery, or other scheduling 26 deadlines, until a ruling is issued on their exhaustion-based motion for summary judgment. 27 Defendants argue good cause for staying discovery while an exhaustion-based motion is pending 28 review, pointing to supporting case law. (Doc. No. 67 at 3-4)(citing Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1 1162, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 2014), Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987)). 2 The Court is vested with broad discretion to stay a case. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 3 705 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). A court may stay 4 its proceedings to promote judicial economy and the fair and efficient adjudication of the matter 5 at hand. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (providing for the district courts “to secure the just, speedy, and 6 inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”). A court may relieve a party of the 7 burdens of discovery where a dispositive motion is pending and discovery is not required to 8 address the issues raised in the motion. Jarvis, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987). Courts often 9 consider the following two factors before issuing a stay: (1) whether the pending motion is 10 potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least dispositive on the issue at which discovery is 11 aimed; and (2) whether the pending potentially dispositive motion can be decided absent 12 additional discovery. Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging Am. Inc., No. 2:10-cv-02630-JAM-KJN, 13 2011 WL 489743, *6 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011). 14 Under Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order “may be 15 modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” The good cause standard of Rule 16 16(b) focuses primarily on the diligence of the moving party and the reasons for seeking 17 modification. C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 18 2011); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). This Court has 19 found good cause to stay a case pending resolution of a motion for summary judgment. See Smith 20 v. Martinez, No. 1:17-cv-01092-AWI-MJS (PC), 2018 WL 1413712, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 21 2018); Henry v. Contreras, No. 1:14-cv-00791-LJO-SKO-PC, 2016 WL 232317, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 22 Jan. 20, 2016). Moreover, this court enjoys “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident 23 to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). 24 Here, good cause is present to modify the scheduling order and to stay discovery pending 25 the exhaustion-based motion for summary judgment. Defendants’ motion is potentially 26 dispositive of the entire action as to at least two defendants. No additional discovery appears 27 necessary to resolve the exhaustion-based motion that is now ripe for review. By staying the 28 case now, the Court will prevent duplication of efforts on the part of the State, Plaintiff, and the 1 | Court. There is no reason to believe, and Plaintiff has not argued, much less responded, that a 2 | stay will prejudice him. 3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 4 1. Defendants’ motion to stay merits-based discovery (Doc. No. 67) is GRANTED. 5 2. The deadlines in the Court’s April 21, 2022 discovery and scheduling order (Doc. No. 46) 6 are STAYED. 7 3. A modified scheduling and discovery order will issue after the Court adjudicates 8 Defendants’ exhaustion-based motion for summary judgment. 9 | Dated: _ October 27. 2022 Wile. Th fareh Zack 11 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28