Opel v. Dep't of Corr.

Full title: HEATHER OPEL, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JANE PARNELL, NORM…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Date published: Jun 24, 2014

No. C14-5160 RBL-KLS (W.D. Wash. Jun. 24, 2014)

Opinion

No. C14-5160 RBL-KLS

06-24-2014

HEATHER OPEL, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JANE PARNELL, NORM CALDWELL, GINA ROSENDALE, ALEXIS STROMBERG, CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS J LABOON, J TROUDT, COOPER, SERGEANT LARRY BELFOR Defendants.

Karen L. Strombom

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR

ADDITIONAL TIME

This matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Local Rules MJR 3 and 4. Defendants ask for a stay of discovery while their motion to dismiss is pending. Dkt. 20. Dkt. 20 contains both the motion to dismiss and the motion to stay discovery. Ms. Opel asks for additional time to respond to defendants' motions. Dkt. 22. Defendants responded to Ms. Opel's motion for additional time and do not oppose the motion. Dkt. 23.

Defendants have raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in the motion to dismiss. Dkt. 20, p. 4. Qualified immunity is "an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by a defendant official." Harlow, 457 U.S. at 815 (citing Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 (1980)). The immunity is "immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability." Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)(italic in original). "Until this threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The undersigned notes that the motion to dismiss raises legal arguments and not factual disputes and Ms. Opel should not need discovery to address defendants' motion to dismiss. Given the Supreme Court precedent on the issue of discovery when qualified immunity is pending, the undersigned GRANTS defendants' motion to stay discovery.

Ms. Opel asks for additional time to respond to the motion to dismiss and defendants do not oppose her request. Dkt. 22 and 23. The undersigned GRANTS plaintiff's unopposed motion for additional time.

The Clerk's Office is directed to remove defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 20) from the June 13, 2014 calendar and re-note the motion for August 15, 2014. This gives Ms. Opel until August 8, 2014 to file her response to defendants' motion and defendants a week to file a reply.

__________

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge