IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02554-REB-MEH

RONALD M. COX,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOUG, Nurse of (DRDC) (CDOC),

ZAVISLAN, (DRDC) Warden (CDOC), and

REAUX (DRDC) Captain (CDOC),

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery and Vacate June 6, 2012

Scheduling Conference [filed June 4, 2012; docket #32]. The motion has been referred to this Court

for disposition [docket #33]. Oral argument would not materially assist the Court in adjudicating

this motion. For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion is granted.

I. Background

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Colorado State Penitentiary, originated this action on September

29, 2011, and is proceeding pro se. During initial review, Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended

complaint (docket #6), then ordered to file a second amended complaint on January 31, 2012 (docket

#11). Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, as modified by the Court’s March 20, 2012 order

(docket #18) is the operative pleading in this matter. In essence, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants

have denied him medical care in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Second

Amended Complaint, docket #14, at 4-5. On May 21, 2012, the Defendants responded to the Second

Case 1:11-cv-02554-RM-MEH Document 34 Filed 06/04/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

Amended Complaint by filing a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), asserting,

among other defenses, that they are entitled to qualified immunity in their personal capacities. See

docket #27. Shortly thereafter, Defendants filed the present Motion to Stay, stating that, “[t]he

‘purely legal question’ of qualified immunity should be decided before pre-trial discovery is

conducted.” Docket #32 at 2. 

II. Discussion

The Supreme Court has emphasized the broad protection qualified immunity affords, giving

officials “a right, not merely to avoid ‘standing trial,’ but also to avoid the burdens of ‘such pretrial

matters as discovery.’ “ Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308 (1996) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth,

472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)); see also Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998).

Consequently, courts should resolve the purely legal question raised by a qualified immunity defense

at the earliest possible stage in litigation. Albright v. Rodriguez, 51 F.3d 1531, 1534 (10th Cir.

1995); see also Medina v. Cram, 252 F.3d 1124, 1127-28 (10th Cir. 2001).

In this case, Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint asserting,

among other defenses, that they enjoy qualified immunity from the Plaintiff’s claims. The Court has

broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket. See

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248,

254 (1936)). Because Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss raises a legal question of this Court’s

jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute, the question should be resolved as early as

possible in the litigation. See Albright, 51 F.3d at 1534. The case is still in the early stages of

litigation; no scheduling conference has been held, and Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint with the pending motion to dismiss that could fully dispose of Plaintiff’s claims

Case 1:11-cv-02554-RM-MEH Document 34 Filed 06/04/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

before engaging the discovery process. Consequently, the Court will grant a temporary stay of the

proceedings in this matter pending the disposition of the Motion to Dismiss.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery and Vacate

June 6, 2012 Scheduling Conference [filed June 4, 2012; docket #32] is granted. The proceedings

of this case are hereby stayed pending the District Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

The Scheduling Conference currently set for June 6, 2012 is vacated. The parties are directed to

submit a status report within five days of the entry of any order adjudicating the pending Motion to

Dismiss.

Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 4th day of June, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 

Michael E. Hegarty

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02554-RM-MEH Document 34 Filed 06/04/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3