Figueroa v. Brown et al, No. 6:2021cv00079 - Document 10 (D. Or. 2021)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons stated, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to stay (ECF No. 9 ), and STAYS this action pending resolution of class certification in the Maney case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 4/6/2021 by Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman. (Deposited in outgoing mail to Plaintiff on 4/7/2021.) (gw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Figueroa v. Brown et al Doc. 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON DAVID BRUCE FIGUEROA, Case No. 6:21-cv-00079-SB Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. KATE BROWN et al., Defendants. BECKERMAN, U.S. Magistrate Judge. David Figueroa (“Figueroa”), a self-represented litigant in the custody of the Oregon Department of Corrections (“ODOC”), filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) against Governor Kate Brown (“Governor Brown”) and several ODOC officials (together, “Defendants”), alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to stay this litigation. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to stay. /// /// /// PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com BACKGROUND Figueroa is an adult in custody (“AIC”) of ODOC and is currently housed at the Santiam Correctional Institution. On January 19, 2021, Figueroa filed this action against Defendants, alleging that Defendants knowingly exposed him to COVID-19 and that ODOC’s failure adequately to respond to COVID-19 violates his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (ECF No. 2.) Nine months earlier, on April 6, 2020, seven AICs (the “Maney Plaintiffs”) housed at four ODOC institutions filed a civil rights action under Section 1983 against Governor Brown and several ODOC officials (together, the “Maney Defendants”). (Defs.’ Mot. to Stay at 3, ECF No. 9; Maney et al. v. Brown et al., 6:20-cv-00570-SB (“Maney”), ECF No. 1.) The Maney Plaintiffs allege that the Maney Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to their health and safety by failing adequately to protect them from COVID-19 through social distancing, testing, sanitizing, medical treatment, masking, and vaccines. (See Maney TAC, ECF No. 160.) The Maney Plaintiffs assert allegations on behalf of a class of similarly situated AICs, and propose three classes: (1) the “Injunctive Relief Class”; (2) the “Damages Class”; and (3) the “Vaccine Class.” (Maney TAC ¶¶ 20-21.) On January 21, 2021, the Maney Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction requiring ODOC to offer all AICs housed in ODOC facilities a COVID-19 vaccine, and sought provisional class certification of the Vaccine Class, which includes: “All adults in custody housed at Oregon Department of Corrections facilities (ODOC) who have not been offered COVID-19 vaccinations.” (Maney Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 156; Maney Pls.’ Mot. to Certify Class at 2, ECF No. 154.) On February 2, 2021, this Court granted the Maney Plaintiffs’ motion for provisional class certification of the Vaccine Class and motion for a preliminary injunction. (Maney Op. & Order at 34, ECF No. 178.) PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER On March 22, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to stay this matter pending resolution of the motion for class certification in Maney. (Defs.’ Mot. to Stay at 1.) The Maney Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification of the remaining two classes is currently due on May 3, 2021. (ECF No. 199.) DISCUSSION I. APPLICABLE LAW “District courts have the discretion to stay proceedings pending before them.” Patton v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 19-cv-00081, 2019 WL 851933, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2019) (citing Landis v. N.A. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936), and Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005)); see also Confederated Tribes & Bands of Yakama Nation v. Airgas USA, LLC, 435 F. Supp. 3d 1103, 1127 (D. Or. 2019) (“This court has the inherent power to control its docket to ‘promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’”) (citation omitted). In deciding whether to grant a party’s motion to stay, courts in this circuit typically consider the following three factors: “‘(1) [the] potential prejudice to the nonmoving party; (2) [the] hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation[.]’” Patton, 2019 WL 851933, at *3 (quoting Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997)). II. ANALYSIS The Court finds that on balance, the relevant factors weigh in favor of staying this action pending resolution of class certification in Maney. First, there is substantial overlap between the parties and legal issues to resolve in the Maney case and this case, as both actions include Section 1983 claims alleging that ODOC officials acted with deliberate indifference to AICs’ health and safety by failing adequately to PAGE 3 – OPINION AND ORDER protect them from COVID-19. (Maney TAC ¶ 156; Compl. at 4-5.) A stay will conserve judicial resources by avoiding duplicative litigation. Furthermore, it appears that Figueroa is a member of the Injunctive Relief Class composed of AICs who are at high risk of death or severe illness from COVID-19, based on Figueroa’s allegation that he is currently housed in an ODOC facility and is at high risk of death or severe illness from COVID-19 due to pre-existing medical conditions. (See Compl. at 4-5, stating that he suffers from pre-existing medical conditions; Maney TAC ¶ 20, noting that the proposed Injunctive Relief Class includes AICs who suffer from qualifying “serious medical conditions”). A stay in this case will not result in significant delay, as the motion for class certification in Maney is currently due on May 3, 2021. (ECF No. 199.) If the Court grants the Maney Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, Figueroa may elect to proceed as a member of the Injunctive Relief Class, or he may opt out and litigate his own case. See McDaniels v. Stewart, No. 15-CV-05943-BHS-DWC, 2017 WL 132454, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 13, 2017) (granting stay pending class certification and noting that “Plaintiff may elect to be a member of the class if it is certified, or opt-out and proceed with his own case”). On the other hand, if the Court denies class certification, Figueroa faces only a brief delay in this matter. For these reasons, the Court concludes that staying this litigation will conserve judicial resources by avoiding duplicative litigation, and a stay will not unduly prejudice Figueroa. See McDaniels, 2017 WL 132454, at *2 (granting stay because “staying this action pending resolution of class certification . . . promotes judicial economy and does not prejudice Defendants”); see also Hilario Pankim v. Barr, No. 20-cv-02941-JSC, 2020 WL 2542022, at *11 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2020) (staying habeas petition pending adjudication in separate class action PAGE 4 – OPINION AND ORDER because “[t]he potential relief available to [the petitioner]—immediate release due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the conditions of confinement at the Yuba County [Jail], and his medical vulnerabilities—is the same substantive relief sought in this action and is based on the same underlying facts” and therefore “a stay pending adjudication of [the class action] is warranted”); Duong v. Jennings, No. 20-cv-02864-RMI, 2020 WL 2524252, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2020) (same); Calderon v. Barr, No. 2:20-cv-00891 KJM GGH, 2020 WL 2394287, at *4-5 (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2020) (same). CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to stay (ECF No. 9), and STAYS this action pending resolution of class certification in the Maney case.1 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 6th day of April, 2021. HON. STACIE F. BECKERMAN United States Magistrate Judge “[A] motion to stay is nondispositive where it ‘[does] not dispose of any claims or defenses and [does] not effectively deny . . . any ultimate relief sought.’” James v. Ariz. Dep’t of Corrs., No. 18-4545, 2019 WL 7494660, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 14, 2019) (quoting S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1260 (9th Cir. 2013)). Defendants’ motion to stay does not dispose of any claims or defenses and does not effectively deny any ultimate relief. Thus, this Court may resolve the motion to stay without full consent to the jurisdiction of a U.S. Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 1 PAGE 5 – OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
