Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01966/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01966-2/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Curtis Boyd is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I.

RELEVANT HISTORY

This action is proceeding is against Defendant Etchebehere for violation of his First 

Amendment right to free exercise of religion. 

On November 25, 2014, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on lack of 

exhaustion of administrative remedies. 

On November 26, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the 

motion relating to exhaustion. (ECF No. 22.) 

Plaintiff did not file an opposition. 

///

CURTIS BOYD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

C. ETCHEBEHERE,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-01966-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST 

TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION 

OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[ECF No. 22]

Case 1:13-cv-01966-LJO-SAB Document 23 Filed 01/09/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery. Dichter-Mad Family Partners, 

LLP v. U.S., 709 F.3d 749, 751 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 117 (2013); Hunt, 

672 F.3d at 616; Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett 

v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1), the Court may, for good 

cause, issue a protective order forbidding or limiting discovery. The avoidance of undue burden or 

expense is grounds for the issuance of a protective order, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), and a stay of discovery 

pending resolution of potentially dispositive issues furthers the goal of efficiency for the courts and the 

litigants, Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (stay of discovery pending 

resolution of immunity issue). The propriety of delaying discovery on the merits of the plaintiff’s 

claims pending resolution of an exhaustion motion was explicitly recognized by the Ninth Circuit. 

Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 403 (2014); 

see also Gibbs v. Carson, No. C-13-0860 THE (PR), 2014 WL 172187, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 

2014).

III.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to the Court’s standard practice in civil rights cases such as this, the discovery phase 

opens via the issuance of a discovery and scheduling order, and the discovery period is eight months 

long, with the potential for extension upon a timely showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). In 

this case, the discovery phase commenced on September 18, 2014, with the issuance of the discovery 

and scheduling order, and the discovery deadline was set for May 18, 2015. 

Defendant moved for a stay of discovery pending resolution of his exhaustion motion. 

The failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, and Defendants are entitled to judgment on 

unexhausted claims. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166. Thus, the pending exhaustion motion has the potential 

to bring final resolution to some or all of Plaintiff’s claims in this action, which would obviate the 

need for discovery as to those claims. Gibbs, 2014 WL 172187, at *3. In Albino, the Ninth Circuit 

recognized that “[e]xhaustion should be decided, if feasible, before reaching the merits of a prisoner’s 

Case 1:13-cv-01966-LJO-SAB Document 23 Filed 01/09/15 Page 2 of 3
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

claims,” and “discovery directed to the merits of the suit” should be left until later. Albino, 747 F.3d 

at 1170. 

The Court finds good cause to grant Defendant’s motion to stay discovery. As stated, 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is based on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies for the claim at issue in this case. Resolution of Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment may cause discovery to be unnecessary. Plaintiff has not opposed a stay of 

discovery, and the Court does not anticipate a lengthy stay pending resolution of the motion for 

summary judgment. Therefore, Defendant’s motion to stay discovery shall be granted. Except for 

discovery related to whether Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies, the parties are 

precluded from responding to any discovery requests or serving any discovery requests until the stay is 

lifted. If the parties have been served with discovery requests that do not relate to Plaintiff’s 

exhaustion of administrative remedies, they shall retain the discovery for later consideration, if and 

until the stay has been lifted. 

IV.

ORDER

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion to stay discovery, filed on November 26, 2014, is GRANTED;

2. Discovery in this action, which commenced on September 18, 2014, is stayed pending 

resolution of Defendant’s exhaustion motion; and

3. Following the resolution of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Court shall 

issue a new scheduling order if necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01966-LJO-SAB Document 23 Filed 01/09/15 Page 3 of 3