Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08009/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08009-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Henry Thompson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Apache County; and Michael and

Joyclynn, husband and wife,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8009-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants on January 15, 2010. Doc. 1. His

amended complaint, filed May 6, 2010, asserts multiple claims for relief: a § 1983 claim for

violation of free speech and freedom of association, a § 1983 claim for violation of religion,

a § 1985 claim for conspiracy to violate civil rights, a § 1986 claim for failure to prevent the

§ 1985 violation, breach of contract, wrongful termination, and violation of the Arizona

Wage Act. Doc. 11. The amended complaint also requests attorneys’ fees under § 1988,

punitive damages, and prejudgment interest. Id.

Defendants have filed a motion to stay the case pending resolution of Plaintiff’s

EEOC charge. Doc. 15. Plaintiff has no objection to a three-month stay, but requests that

a status conference be set at the end of that period to determine whether a further stay is

required. Doc. 17. The Court declines to stay this matter, but will consider the EEOC charge

and a potential Title VII claim in setting the case management schedule. Defendants’ request

for oral argument is denied because the issues have been fully briefed and oral argument will

not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926

Case 3:10-cv-08009-DGC Document 19 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

(9th Cir. 1998).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion to stay litigation pending resolution of related EEOC

charge (Doc. 15) is denied.

2. The Court will set a case management conference by separate order.

DATED this 26th day of July, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08009-DGC Document 19 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 2