1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02183-MSK-KLM

RICKEY EUGENE STOCKTON-BEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. HUFFINE, Judge,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s twice-filed “Motion for Summary

Judgement [sic] to Stop Dismissal Based on Judges [sic] Immunity” [Docket No. 11;

Filed September 19, 2011] and [Docket No. 16; Filed September 20, 2011], Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 17; Filed September 29, 2011], and Defendant’s

Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Ruling(s) on Dispositive Motions

[Docket No. 19; Filed November 22, 2011].

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s first “Motion for Summary Judgement [sic]

. . .” [#11] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as noncompliant with the requirements of

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. However, in consideration of the Court’s obligation to liberally construe

a pro se litigant’s filings, the Court will review the content of the “Motion” in making its

Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [#17]. A written Recommendation will

issue regarding the Motion to Dismiss in due course.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second “Motion for Summary Judgement

[sic] . . .” [#16] is DENIED AS DUPLICATIVE of the first “Motion” [#11].

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Stay [#19] is GRANTED.

Although the stay of proceedings in a case is generally disfavored, the Court has discretion

to stay discovery while a dispositive motion is pending. See Wason Ranch Corp. v. Hecla

Mining Co., No. 07-cv-00267-EWN-MEH, 2007 WL 1655362, at *1 (D. Colo. June 6, 2007)

(unreported decision) (“A stay of all discovery is generally disfavored in this District.”

(citation omitted)). A stay of discovery during the pendency of a dispositive motion

asserting a jurisdictional challenge may be appropriate and efficient. See Behrens v.

Case 1:11-cv-02183-MSK-KLM Document 24 Filed 11/29/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308 & 310 (1996) (noting that discovery can be particularly

disruptive when a dispositive motion regarding immunity is pending); Moore v. Busby, 92

F. App'x 699, 702 (10th Cir. 2004) (affirming trial court's stay of discovery pending

resolution of absolute immunity question); Albright v. Rodriguez, 51 F.3d 1531, 1534 (10th

Cir. 1995) (“the Supreme Court has repeatedly ‘stressed the importance of resolving

immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.’” (citation omitted)). Here,

Defendant raises absolute judicial immunity as a complete defense in the pending Motion

to Dismiss [#17]. Moreover, the Motion to Stay is unopposed. Thus, the Court finds that

a stay of proceedings pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss is appropriate and

efficient, and grants Defendant’s request. See also Rivers v. Hartmann, No. 11-cv-02171-

CMA-KMT, 2011 WL 5374968 (D. Colo. Nov. 8, 2011) (granting a stay on the basis that the

defendant raised Eleventh Amendment immunity and absolute judicial immunity as

defenses). This matter is hereby STAYED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for January 17,

2012, is VACATED. The Court will reset the Scheduling Conference, if necessary, after

resolution of the Motion to Dismiss [#17].

Dated: November 29, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-02183-MSK-KLM Document 24 Filed 11/29/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2