Davi v. Cook et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SCOTT WILLIAM DAVI, 4:21-CV-04160-RAL
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY
AND SETTING MOTION DEADLINE
JESSICA COOK, ASSOSIATE WARDEN AT
JAMISON ANEX;IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MARY CARPENTER,
MEDICAL DIRECTOR;IN HER INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; TROY PONTO,
DEPTY WARDEN AT SIOUX FALLS DOC;IN
HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; ANGELA PECHOUS, UNIT
COORDINATOR;IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND DANIEL
SULLIVAN,IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
Defendants.
Defendants assert that they are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity for the
claims the Plaintiff Scott William Davi has made under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in this case. Doc. 19 at
5. Defendants filed a Motion to Stay and Request for Motion Deadline. Doc.21. Defendants plan
on filing a motion for summaryjudgment based on qualified immunity and seek a motion deadline
sixty days from the entry ofthis Order. Doc. 22 at 1.
The United States Supreme Court has held that "qualified immunity is 'an immvmity from
suit rather than a mere defense to liability . . .[and] it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously
permitted to go to trial.'" Pearson v. Callahan. 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009)(quoting Mitchell v.
Case 4:21-cv-04160-RAL Document 23 Filed 02/17/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>

Forsvth.472 U.S. 511,526(1985)). The Supreme Court has stated "[ijndeed, we have made clear
that the 'driving force' behind creation ofthe qualified immunity doctrine was a desire to ensure
that 'insubstantial claims' against government officials [will] be resolved prior to discovery."
Pearson. 555 U.S. at 231 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton. 483 U.S. 635,640 n.2 (1987)). "[T]he
Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit have 'repeatedly . .. stressed the importance of resolving
immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.'" Gard v. Kaemingk. Civ. No. 13-
4062-LLP,2014 WL 4092776,at *4(D.S.D. Aug. 18,2014)(quoting O'Neil v. Citv ofIowa City.
496 F.3d 915,917(8th Cir. 2007)). "[T]he district court ha[s] the inherent power to grant [a] stay
in order to control its docket, conserve judicial resources, and provide for a just determination of
the cases pending before it." Id (quoting Contracting Nw.. Inc. v. Citv of Fredericksburg. Iowa.
713 F.2d 382, 387(8th Cir. 1983)). Therefore, for good cause, it is
ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Stay and Request for Motion Deadline, Doc. 21,
is granted and that discovery is stayed until this Court rules on the anticipated motion for summary
judgement. It is further
ORDERED that Defendants have forty-five (45) days from the date of this order as their
deadline to file such a motion.
DATED this 17th day of February, 2023.
BY THE COURT:
ROBERTO A. LANGE
CHIEF JUDGE
Case 4:21-cv-04160-RAL Document 23 Filed 02/17/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>