Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01980/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01980-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

CHRISTOPHER A. GEIER,

Plaintiff,

v.

RON DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.16-cv-01980-JSC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR 

STAY OF DISCOVERY AND 

EXTENSION OF TIME

Re: Dkt. Nos. 17, 19

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by opening his legal 

mail outside of his presence. The Court found the claims, when liberally construed, stated 

cognizable grounds for relief, and ordered the complaint served on Defendants. Defendants filed a 

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and for qualified 

immunity based upon the allegations in the complaint. Plaintiff has propounded discovery, which 

Defendants seek to stay until the resolution of their qualified immunity argument. Generally, 

discovery should be stayed until the threshold issue of qualified immunity is resolved. See

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). In some cases discovery may be necessary in 

order to resolve the qualified immunity defense, but here Defendants assert qualified immunity 

only on the basis of the allegations in the complaint. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to stay 

discovery is GRANTED and discovery is STAYED until the resolution of the qualified immunity 

defense raised in Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

Case 3:16-cv-01980-JSC Document 22 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time in which to file an 

opposition to the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The opposition is due on or before October 

28, 2016. Defendants shall file a reply brief within 14 days of the date any opposition is filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01980-JSC Document 22 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 2