(PC) Flow-Sunkett v. T. Redmon

Opinion

GLENN SUNKETT, Case No. 1:21-cv-01137-HBK (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER STAYING PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION v. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT T. BOERUM and T. REDMON, (Doc. No. 58) Defendants. On June 18, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is ripe for review and now pending before the Court. (Doc. Nos. 55, 56, 57). On September 6, 2024, Defendants filed an exhaustion-based Motion for Summary Judgment, which is currently pending a response from Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 58). Because the earlier-filed Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”) may be dispositive of the case and thus render moot the Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”), the Court finds it appropriate to stay the Motion for Summary Judgment pending the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. A federal court enjoys “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). For example, magistrate judges have broad discretion to stay discovery pending decisions on dispositive motions. Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Scroggins v. Air Cargo, Inc., 534 F.2d 1124, 1133 (5th Cir. 1976). Here, the Court finds that a stay is warranted in the interests of judicial economy and to preserve the Parties’ time and resources. The Court’s ruling on the pending Motion to Dismiss may render moot the Motion for Summary Judgment, and therefore further briefing on the MSJ should be stayed pending the Court’s decision on the earlier-filed motion MTD. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 58) is STAYED pending the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 55) or until further order of the Court. The Court will advise Plaintiff when a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment is due, if appropriate. Dated: _ September 23, 2024 Wiha Th fares Zack HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE