Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00843/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00843-8/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

DAMEN D. RABB,

Plaintiff,

v.

ESTEVEN FIGUEROA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STAY MERITS-BASED 

DISCOVERY AND VACATE DEADLINES

(ECF No. 34)

Plaintiff Isaiah J. Petillo is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay merits-based discovery, filed 

February 26, 2024. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition and the time to do so has 

passed. 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); Hunt v. County 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. 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 

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 40 Filed 03/27/24 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

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); see also Gibbs v. Carson, No. C-13-0860 THE (PR), 2014 WL 172187, 

at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014).

On February 20, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment for Plaintiff’s 

failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. (ECF No. 32.) The failure to exhaust is an 

affirmative defense, and Defendants are entitled to judgment on Plaintiff’s claims against them if 

the Court determines the claim is unexhausted. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1166. Thus, the pending 

exhaustion motion has the potential to bring final resolution to this action, obviating the need for

merits-based discovery. 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 

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

F.3d at 1170. To the extent that the non-moving party needs specific discovery to address issues 

raised in a dispositive motion, the non-moving party may seek redress by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 56(d). Albino, 747 F.3d at 1170-71; Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1115 n.7 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (overruled on other grounds by Albino, 747 F.3d at 1168-69). 

On the basis of good cause, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. All merits-based discovery is stay until a final ruling on Defendants’ pending 

motion for summary judgment; 

2. The discovery and dispositive motions deadlines are vacated; and

3. If necessary, the Court will reset the deadlines following resolution of the pending 

motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00843-JLT-SAB Document 40 Filed 03/27/24 Page 2 of 2