Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01904/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01904-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUINCY SIMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CABRERA,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY 

DISCOVERY AS MOOT

(Doc. 21)

Plaintiff Quincy Sims (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 21, 2012. This 

action for damages is proceeding against Defendant M. Cabrera (“Defendant”) for failing to 

protect Plaintiff from the threat of harm by gang members or affiliates while he was at Kern 

Valley State Prison, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

On May 12, 2014, Defendant filed a motion seeking to stay discovery pending resolution 

of his motion for judgment on the pleadings based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the 

administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Plaintiff did not file an 

opposition. Local Rule 230(l). 

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 v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. 

Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 42 Filed 12/08/14 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

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).

However, Defendant’s motion for a stay is now moot in light of the findings and 

recommendations issued concurrently with this order recommending denial of Defendant’s motion 

for judgment on the pleadings. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to stay discovery is HEREBY 

DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 42 Filed 12/08/14 Page 2 of 2