From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gammons v. City of Denver, Colorado

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Jun 1, 2010
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00506-CMA-BNB (D. Colo. Jun. 1, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 10-cv-00506-CMA-BNB.

June 1, 2010


ORDER


This matter arises on the Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery and Vacate the May 21, 2010 Scheduling Conference and Associated Deadlines [Doc. # 10, filed 5/12/2010] (the "Motion to Stay"). The Motion to Stay is GRANTED.

The plaintiff appears to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several defendants in their individual capacities. Those defendants have moved to dismiss the claims based on the defense of qualified immunity. See Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 9, filed May 10, 2010] at p. 18. In addition, the defendants seek to stay discovery pending a decision on the Motion to Dismiss. The Motion to Stay is not opposed. Motion to Stay [Doc. # 10] at p. 2.

Qualified immunity is not a mere defense to liability but is also an immunity from suit. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526-27 (1985). Qualified immunity is an entitlement both not to stand trial, Workman v. Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir. 1992), and from the burdens of pretrial discovery. Pueblo Neighborhood Health Centers v. Losavio, 847 F.2d 642, 644 (10th Cir. 1988). "[W]hen a case can be dismissed on the pleadings or in an early pre-trial stage, qualified immunity also provides officials with the valuable protection from the burdens of broad-ranging discovery." Johnson v. Frankell, 520 U.S. 911, 915 n. 2 (1997) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Until the threshold issue of qualified immunity is resolved, discovery should not be allowed. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

A stay of discovery is appropriate under the facts of this case and because the Motion to Stay is unopposed.

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Stay [Doc. # 10] is GRANTED. Discovery is stayed pending a decision on the defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a status report within 10 days of any ruling on the Motion to Dismiss addressing the status of the case and discussing all pretrial matters to be scheduled.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on the Motion to Stay set for June 2, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., is VACATED.


Summaries of

Gammons v. City of Denver, Colorado

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Jun 1, 2010
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00506-CMA-BNB (D. Colo. Jun. 1, 2010)
Case details for

Gammons v. City of Denver, Colorado

Case Details

Full title:DENEEN R. GAMMONS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DENVER, COLORADO, a municipal…

Court:United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Jun 1, 2010

Citations

Civil Action No. 10-cv-00506-CMA-BNB (D. Colo. Jun. 1, 2010)