(PC) Lamon v. Foss

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BARRY LOUIS LAMON, Case No. 20-05450 BLF 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 STAY DISCOVERY AND v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT 13 DEADLINE; GRANTING PLAINTIFF EXTENSION OF TIME 14 T. FOSS, et al., TO FILE OPPOSITION 15 Defendants. (Docket No. 35) 16

17 18 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19 1983 against staff at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). The Court found the amended 20 complaint, Dkt. No. 22, stated cognizable claims and ordered the matter served on 21 Defendants on June 22, 2021. Dkt. No. 23. Defendants were directed to file a motion for 22 summary judgment or other dispositive motion within ninety-one days of the order. Id. at 23 9. On August 12, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis 24 (“IFP”) status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Dkt. No. 32. Plaintiff has not filed a responsive 25 pleading to that motion. 26 On September 15, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery and the 27 deadline for filing a summary judgment motion pending resolution of their motion to 1 A district court has broad discretion to stay discovery pending the disposition of a 2 || dispositive motion. See Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1560 (11th 3 || Cir. 1985); Scroggins v. Air Cargo, Inc., 534 F.2d 1124, 1133 (Sth Cir. 1976); Hovermale 4 || v. School Bd. of Hillsborough County, 128 F.R.D. 287, 289 (M.D. Fla. 1989). But it is an 5 || abuse of that discretion to stay discovery if plaintiff is denied discovery that relates to the 6 || motion. See Scroggins, 534 F.2d at 1133. In addition, motions to stay discovery are not 7 || favored where resolution of the dispositive motion may not dispose of the entire case. See 8 || Panola Land Buyers Assoc. v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1560 (11th Cir. 1985); Hovermale, g || 128 F.R.D. at 289-90. 10 Here, the Court finds good cause to stay discovery with regards to the merits of the 11 || underlying claims pending resolution of Defendants’ motion to revoke Plaintiffs IFP 12 || Status. Success on the motion would result in Plaintiff having to pay the full filing fee in E 13 order to proceed with the action, such that a failure to do so would result in the dismissal S 14 || without prejudice of this matter. It is also therefore appropriate to stay the deadline for 3 15 || filing a summary judgment motion. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to stay discovery 16 || and the summary judgment motion deadline is GRANTED. 5 17 In the interest of justice, Plaintiff is granted an extension of time to file opposition 5 18 to Defendants’ motion to revoke his IFP status. Dkt. No. 32. He shall file an opposition 19 || no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date this order is filed. Defendants shall 20 || file a reply within fourteen (14) days from the date Plaintiff's opposition is filed. 71 This order terminates Docket No. 35. 22 IT ISSO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: _September 20,2021 __ bot Llyn amnuey) BETH LABSON FREEMAN 24 United States District Judge 25 Order Granting Stay; Granting EOT to file Opp. P:\PRO-SE\BLF\CR.20\5450.Lamon_stay.msj 27