Opinion
Civil Action No. 08-cv-00251-WYD-KMT.
July 22, 2008
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on three motions to stay: 1) Colorado Supreme Court and Colorado Court of Appeals' Motion for Stay Pending Disposition of Motion to Dismiss; 2) Defendants, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals' Partially Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery and All Other Proceedings Pending Resolution of Defendants' Motions to Dismiss; and 3) Colorado Supreme Court and Colorado Court of Appeals' Renewed Motion for Stay. These motions seek a stay of the proceeding pending disposition of the pending motions to dismiss.
Turning to my analysis, I find that a stay of the proceedings (except for the pending motions to dismiss) is appropriate. First, it appears that Plaintiff does not oppose a stay of discovery, as he contends the matters before the Court are purely legal. Second, Defendants' motions to dismiss assert that they are entitled to immunity from suit in this matter under the doctrines of sovereign immunity, judicial immunity, and/or the doctrine of qualified immunity. Until the immunity issues are resolved, I agree with Defendants that they should not be put to the expense and burdens of proceeding in this matter.
Indeed, the defense of qualified immunity is meant to "protect the official both from liability as well as from the ordinary burdens of litigation, including far-ranging discovery." Workman v. Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 335 (10th Cir. 1992). Likewise, "[t]he Eleventh Amendment is concerned not only with the States' ability to withstand suit, but with their privilege not to be sued." Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 146 (1993); see also Cornforth v. Howard, No. 96-2602, 98 F.3d 1349, 1996 WL 566168, at *1 (10th Cir. 1996) ("[j]udicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just damages"). Based on the foregoing, I find that Defendants should not be subjected to suit until the immunity issues are resolved. Accordingly, I find that a stay of the proceedings in this case (other than the motions to dismiss) is appropriate. See Pet Milk Co. v. Ritter, 323 F.3d 586, 587 (10th Cir. 1963) ("the district court has the inherent power to stay proceedings pending before it and to control its docket for the purpose of `economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants'") (quoting Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)).
It is therefor
ORDERED that Colorado Supreme Court and Colorado Court of Appeals' Motion for Stay Pending Disposition of Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 23 filed May 28, 2008) is GRANTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals' Partially Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery and All Other Proceedings Pending Resolution of Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Doc. # 41 filed June 24, 2008) is GRANTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Colorado Supreme Court and Colorado Court of Appeals' Renewed Motion for Stay (Doc. # 48 filed June 30, 2008) is GRANTED. In accordance therewith, it is
ORDERED that all proceedings in this case except for Defendants' motions to dismiss are STAYED pending a ruling on Defendants' motions to dismiss, including discovery, any remaining issues with respect to the scheduling conference or any other deadlines in the case. Further, Defendants are not required to file a response to the motion for injunctive relief until the stay is lifted or until further order of the Court.