Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01899/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01899-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OBIE L. CRISP, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01899-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER 

STAYING ACTION OTHER THAN THAT 

RELATED TO THE ISSUE OF EXHAUSTION 

AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT 

(Doc. 35)

I. Background

Plaintiff, Obie Lee Crisp, III, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on November 

22, 2013 (Doc. 1) and is proceeding on claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical 

needs and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act 

(“RA”). 

On December 28, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. 34.) 

Concurrently therewith, Defendants file a motion for protective order seeking to stay all 

discovery in this action other than that related to Plaintiff’s exhaustion efforts. (Doc. 35.) While 

the time for Plaintiff to file an opposition has not yet lapsed, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by 

the consideration of Defendants’ motion since Plaintiff may engage in discovery on the issue of 

exhaustion, and full discovery will be re-opened and a new Discovery and Scheduling Order will 

Case 1:13-cv-01899-AWI-SKO Document 42 Filed 01/14/16 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

issue if the exhaustion issue is not dispositive.

II. Modification of Scheduling Order

A party seeking leave of court to amend the schedule of a case must satisfy Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure116(b)'s “good cause” standard. The good cause standard of Rule 16(b) 

focuses primarily on the diligence of the moving party, id., and the reasons for seeking 

modification, C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th 

Cir.2011). If the party seeking to amend the scheduling order fails to show due diligence, the 

inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern 

California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Here, Defendants have exercised due diligence. The Discovery and Scheduling Order 

issued in this case on December 18, 2015. (Doc. 30.) On December 28, 2015, Defendants file 

their motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s asserted failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. 34.) That same date, Defendants filed their motion for 

protective order seeking to stay all discovery in this action other than that related to Plaintiff’s 

exhaustion efforts. (Doc. 35.) 

III. Stay of Proceedings

A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings, or any portion thereof. 

This power to stay is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of 

the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” 

Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Gold v. Johns–Manville Sales 

Corp., 723 F.2d 1068, 1077 (3d Cir.1983) (holding that the power to stay proceedings comes 

from the power of every court to manage the cases on its docket and to ensure a fair and efficient 

adjudication of the matter at hand). This is best accomplished by the “exercise of judgment, 

which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–

55. In determining whether a stay is warranted, courts consider the potential prejudice to the nonmoving party; the hardship or inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and the 

judicial resources that would be saved by simplifying the case or avoiding duplicative litigation if 

 

1

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will hereinafter be referred to as ARule *.@ Any reference to other statutory 

authorities shall so indicate.

Case 1:13-cv-01899-AWI-SKO Document 42 Filed 01/14/16 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

the case before the court is stayed. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.1962). The 

Ninth Circuit “has sustained or authorized in principle Landis stays on several occasions.” 

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir.2005).

If Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s exhaustion efforts is granted,

a large portion of this case will be dismissed. As such, it is reasonable to stay discovery other 

than that related to Plaintiff’s exhaustion efforts until Defendants motion for summary judgment 

is ruled on.

IV. Order

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for protective order to 

modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order to stay all discovery other than as it relates to 

Plaintiff’s exhaustion efforts, filed on December 28, 2015 (Doc. 35), is GRANTED and the 

Discovery and Scheduling Order is MODIFIED. All current deadlines are vacated and discovery 

in this action is stayed other than that related to Plaintiff’s exhaustion efforts. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01899-AWI-SKO Document 42 Filed 01/14/16 Page 3 of 3