Lamon v. Foss
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-05450
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Lamon v. Foss, Judge Freeman stayed merits discovery and the summary-judgment deadline while a fee-waiver motion was pending, and extended Lamon’s response time.
The order affected Barry Louis Lamon and the defendants by pausing merits discovery and the summary-judgment deadline, while setting deadlines for briefing the motion to revoke Lamon’s fee-waiver status.
What happened
In Lamon v. Foss, Barry Louis Lamon, representing himself, sued staff at Salinas Valley State Prison under a federal civil-rights law. The court had found that his amended complaint stated claims that could proceed. Defendants later asked to revoke Lamon’s fee-waiver status and asked to pause discovery and the deadline for their summary-judgment motion.
The court found good cause to pause discovery about the underlying claims and the summary-judgment deadline while the fee-waiver motion was pending. If that motion succeeded, Lamon would have to pay the full filing fee to continue, and failing to do so could result in dismissal of the case without prejudice. The order did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims or the fee-waiver motion.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted defendants’ motion to pause merits discovery and the summary-judgment deadline. She also granted Lamon 28 days from the order’s filing date to oppose the fee-waiver motion, and gave defendants 14 days after Lamon’s opposition to file a reply.
The detailed version
- Lamon v. Foss · No. 5:20-cv-05450
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 20, 2021
Background
Barry Louis Lamon, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court had found that Lamon’s amended complaint stated claims that could proceed and had ordered service on the defendants.
Defendants had been directed to file a summary-judgment motion or another motion resolving the case within 91 days of the service order. They filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) to revoke Lamon’s in forma pauperis status, meaning his permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. Lamon had not filed a response to that motion. Defendants then moved to stay, or pause, discovery and the deadline for filing a summary-judgment motion until the fee-status motion was resolved.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that a district court has broad discretion to stay discovery while a motion that could resolve the case is pending. It found good cause to pause discovery concerning the merits of Lamon’s claims because granting the motion to revoke his fee-waiver status would require him to pay the full filing fee to continue the action. If he failed to do so, the case could be dismissed without prejudice. The court also found it appropriate to pause the deadline for filing a summary-judgment motion.
Order
The court granted defendants’ motion to stay discovery concerning the merits of the underlying claims and to stay the summary-judgment motion deadline. It also granted Lamon an extension of time to oppose the motion to revoke his in forma pauperis status. Lamon’s opposition was due within 28 days after the order was filed, and defendants’ reply was due within 14 days after Lamon filed his opposition. The order did not resolve the fee-status motion or the merits of the civil-rights claims. The order terminated Docket No. 35.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.