Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05756/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05756-6/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAHER CONRAD SUAREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05756-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

STAY DISCOVERY

Re: Dkt. No. 30

Plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison – Solano, filed this 

pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that prison officials violated his 

constitutional rights when he was previously housed at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”). On 

October 14, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. Docket No. 

28. Defendants have also filed a motion to stay discovery, Docket No. 30, which, for the reasons 

set forth below, the Court will GRANT.

DISCUSSION

A district court has broad discretion to stay discovery pending the disposition of a 

dispositive motion. See Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1560 (11th Cir. 

1985); Scroggins v. Air Cargo, Inc., 534 F.2d 1124, 1133 (5th Cir. 1976). A stay of discovery 

pending resolution of a potentially dispositive motion is appropriate where the moving party 

satisfies both elements of a two part test. Pacific Lumber Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of 

Pittsburgh, PA, 220 F.R.D. 349, 351–52 (N.D. Cal. 2003). First, the moving party must 

demonstrate that the “pending motion is potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least 

dispositive on the issue at which the discovery is directed.” Id. at 352. Second, “the court must 

determine whether the pending dispositive motion can be decided absent additional discovery.” 

Case 3:15-cv-05756-VC Document 33 Filed 11/21/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Id. “In applying the two-factor test, the court deciding the motion to stay must take a ‘preliminary 

peek’ at the merits of the pending dispositive motion to assess whether a stay is warranted.” 

Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 503 (D. Nev. 2013). In 

addition, a district court should stay discovery until the threshold question of qualified immunity is 

settled. See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998).

The Court has taken the prescribed “preliminary peek” at the underlying motion to dismiss 

and for summary judgment, and notes the following. The underlying motion argues that 

Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief and declaratory relief should be dismissed with prejudice 

because Plaintiff is no longer housed at PBSP where the alleged constitutional violations took 

place, that Plaintiff’s federal claims are subject to dismissal under the principle of judicial comity 

and qualified immunity, and that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 

over Plaintiff’s state-law claims if the federal claims are dismissed. Docket No. 28. To support 

their motion, Defendants argue the alleged constitutional violations were mandated by court orders 

issued in the court-monitored Coleman v. Brown class action (No. 90-520 (E.D. Cal.)). Id. at 3–8. 

Plaintiff has not responded to this motion and the deadline to do so has since passed.

As to the first prong of the two part test, Defendants have shown that the underlying 

motion to dismiss and for summary judgment is potentially dispositive of this action. If the 

motion is granted, this case would be dismissed.

Second, based on a review of the issues raised in the underlying motion, the Court has 

determined that no additional discovery would assist the Court or the parties in resolution of the 

dispositive motion.

Finally, Defendants seek dismissal of this action based on qualified immunity. The 

Supreme Court has instructed district courts that where “the defendant does plead the immunity 

defense, the district court should resolve that threshold question before permitting discovery. See 

Crawford-El, 523 U.S. at 598.

Based on the foregoing, the Court determines that a stay of discovery pending 

determination of the motion to dismiss and for summary judgment is justified, and the Court 

hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion to stay discovery. Discovery in this matter is stayed 

Case 3:15-cv-05756-VC Document 33 Filed 11/21/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

pending resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss and for summary judgment.

This order terminates Docket No. 30.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

11/21/2016

Case 3:15-cv-05756-VC Document 33 Filed 11/21/16 Page 3 of 3