Rose v. Hancock et al, No. 1:2012cv00110 - Document 55 (D. Utah 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER finding as moot 44 Motion to Stay ; finding as moot 46 Motion to Stay ; granting 51 Motion to Lift Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 3/12/13. (jlw) Modified on 3/12/2013 by changing description of document 51 from motion to stay to motion to lift stay (jlw).

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION CHANDLER RUSSELL ROSE, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. Case No. 1:12-cv-00110-DB-DBP K. HANCOCK, et al. District Judge Dee Benson Defendants. I. Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead INTRODUCTION This civil rights matter was referred to the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Plaintiff is Chandler Russell Rose ( Plaintiff ). Defendants are the following Clearfield, Utah Police Department officers: (1) K. Hancock; (2) Jason Richards; and (3) J. Jackson. On October 10, 2012, this Court stayed discovery in this civil case until the related criminal proceedings against Plaintiff concluded. (Docket No. 36.) Before the Court are the following motions: (1) Defendants motion to stay civil proceedings; (2) Defendants motion to stay briefing on Plaintiff s motion for partial summary judgment; and (3) Plaintiff s motion to lift the October 10, 2012 stay. II. PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO LIFT STAY On December 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to lift the October 10, 2012 discovery stay because criminal proceedings had concluded. (Dkt. No. 51.) That is, on December 7, 2012, Plaintiff entered a plea in abeyance to class B misdemeanor underage drinking. (Id. at 1.) Page 1 of 3 Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff s motion. See DuCivR 7-1(d) ( Failure to respond timely to a motion may result in the court s granting the motion without further notice. ). Because Plaintiff s criminal proceedings have concluded, and because Defendants failed to respond to Plaintiff s motion to lift the stay, the Court GRANTS the motion. (Dkt. No. 51.) III. DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS On November 14, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to stay civil proceedings in their entirety pending the ongoing state criminal proceedings against Plaintiff. 1 Because the criminal proceedings have concluded, the Court finds this motion MOOT. (Dkt. No. 44.) IV. DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT On October 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 37.) On October 12, 2012, District Judge Dee Benson granted Plaintiff s motion to withdraw his partial summary judgment motion. (Dkt. No. 42.) Nevertheless, on November 14, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to stay briefing on Plaintiff s partial summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 46) until the Court ruled on Defendants motion to stay civil proceedings in their entirety (Dkt. No. 44). Because Plaintiff withdrew his October 10, 2012 partial summary judgment motion, and because this Court ruled on Defendants motion to stay above, the Court finds Defendants motion to stay briefing MOOT. (Dkt. No. 46.) V. ORDERS For the reasons above, the Court issues the following ORDERS: Plaintiff s motion to lift the stay in this case is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 51.) Defendants motion to stay civil proceedings in their entirety is MOOT. (Dkt. No. 44.) 1 The Court s October 10, 2012 order merely stayed discovery in this civil proceeding. (Dkt. No. 36.) Page 2 of 3 Defendants motion to stay briefing on Plaintiff s October 10, 2012 motion for partial summary judgment is MOOT. (Dkt. No. 46.) Dated this 12th day of March, 2013. Dustin B. Pead United States Magistrate Judge Page 3 of 3

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.