(PC) Carthen v. Scott ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 TREMANE DARNELL CARTHEN, Case No. 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING 12 v. RESOLUTION OF MOTION TO DISMISS 13 P. SCOTT, et al., (ECF No. 58) 14 Defendants. 15 16 Tremane Carthen (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis with this civil rights action. Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay discovery, 18 including the deadline for the parties to provide scheduling and discovery statements. (ECF No. 19 58). 20 On May 18, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that, among other 21 reasons, “[t]he claims must be dismissed because, under the two-step analysis set forth in Ziglar 22 v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017), this Court cannot create an individual damages remedy in this 23 new context.” (ECF No. 54, p. 1). On June 3, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery, 24 including the deadline for the parties to provide scheduling and discovery statements. (ECF No. 25 58). 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 Defendants’ motion to stay 10 | should be granted. Plaintiff did not oppose Defendants’ motion to stay. Moreover, Defendants’ 11 | motion to dismiss may resolve the case in its entirety. 12 Based on the foregoing, the parties’ and the Court’s time and resources will be conserved 13 | by astay. Additionally, the stay will not impose undue hardship or inequity to the parties at this 14 | stage in the case. Thus, the Court will stay discovery, including the deadline for the parties to 15 | provide scheduling and discovery statements. The Court will reset any necessary deadlines and 16 lift the stay following a final ruling on the motion to dismiss, if any claim proceeds. 17 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. Defendants’ motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 58) is GRANTED; and 19 2. Discovery, including the deadline for the parties to provide scheduling and discovery 20 statements, is STAYED. The Court will lift the stay and reset the relevant deadline(s), 21 if necessary, after the District Judge issues an order on Defendants’ pending motion to 22 dismiss (ECF No. 54). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ July 12, 2022 [le ey — 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28