(PC) Felix v. Cazores

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TYLO JEROME FELIX, JR., Case No.: 1:24-cv-00332-JLT-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND 13 v. DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES 14 C. CAZORES, et al., (Doc. 27) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Tylo Jerome Felix, Jr., is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s constitutional claims against Defendants 19 Cazores, Smotherman, Diaz, Velasquez, and Arreazola. 20 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 21 The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on August 23, 2024. (Doc. 17.) The 22 remaining deadlines include the discovery cut-off deadline of January 23, 2025, and the 23 dispositive motion filing deadline of March 24, 2025. (See id.) 24 On January 3, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to 25 Exhaust Administrative Remedies, contending Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative 26 remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. 26.)1 27

1 Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition is due January 24, 2025, plus time for mailing. See 1 On January 15, 2025, Defendants filed a motion seeking to stay the discovery deadline 2 and the dispositive motion filing deadline. (Doc. 27.) A response by Plaintiff is unnecessary. 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 Defendants move for a stay of the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. Defendants 5 have filed a motion for summary judgment alleging Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative 6 remedies. Defendants note that Plaintiff’s opposition is due January 24, 2025, one day after the 7 current discovery cut-off deadline. Because the exhaustion motion may be dispositive of the 8 action, Defendants ask the Court to stay the remaining deadlines until it rules on the pending 9 exhaustion motion. 10 A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings. This power to stay is 11 “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its 12 docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North 13 American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 14 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A court may decide to stay the civil case when required by 15 the interests of justice”). 16 Here, the Court finds a stay of the deadline for the completion of discovery and for the 17 filing of dispositive motions promotes judicial economy. Landis, 299 U.S. at 254. Staying the 18 discovery and dispositive motion deadlines will allow the Court to issue a final ruling on the 19 pending exhaustion motion in due course without disruption of those remaining deadlines. If 20 Defendants’ summary judgment motion regarding exhaustion is granted, the deadlines for the 21 completion of discovery and the filing of dispositive motions would be mooted. However, if 22 Defendants’ motion is denied, the Court will reimpose the relevant deadlines and discovery will 23 continue. 24 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 25 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 26 1. Defendants’ motion to stay the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines (Doc. 27) 27 is GRANTED; and 1 2. The deadlines for the completion of discovery and for the filing of dispositive motions 2 are STAYED. Those deadlines will be reimposed following final resolution of 3 Defendants’ summary judgment motion concerning exhaustion, if necessary. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

6 Dated: January 16, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27