The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
DANIEL ALVARADO, Case No. 6:20-cv-01114-SB
Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER
v.
NP MORIAM BALOGUN; LT. MULLENS;
RN MAKEY; and SGT. REDDING,
Defendants.
BECKERMAN, U.S. Magistrate Judge.
Daniel Alvarado (“Alvarado”), a self-represented litigant in the custody of the Oregon
Department of Corrections (“ODOC”), brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(“Section 1983”) against several ODOC officials (“Defendants”). Alvarado alleges that
Defendants were negligent and deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. 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.
BACKGROUND
Alvarado is an adult in custody (“AIC”) of ODOC and is currently housed at Santiam
Correctional Institution. (ECF No. 20.) On July 10, 2020, Alvarado filed this action against
Defendants, alleging that he became infected with COVID-19 due to Defendants’ negligence and
deliberative indifference to his medical needs, and that he received inadequate medical care in
violation of his constitutional rights. (Compl., ECF No. 2.)
Months earlier, on April 6, 2020, seven AICs housed at four ODOC institutions (the
“Maney Plaintiffs”) filed a Section 1983 civil rights action against Governor Kate Brown and
several ODOC officials (together, “Maney Defendants”). (Def.’s Mot. to Stay at 1, ECF No. 28;
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 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 September 1, 2020, Alvarado filed an amended complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 7.) On
October 26, 2020, the Court issued Findings and Recommendation, recommending dismissal of
Alvarado’s claims against Governor Kate Brown and ODOC Director Collette Peters (ECF No.
10), which the district judge adopted in full.1 (Op. & Order, ECF No. 26.)
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
1 Alvarado also filed a discovery motion on November 9, 2020 (ECF No. 14), and a
motion for summary judgment on January 7, 2021 (ECF No. 22). The Court denied both motions
as premature, with leave to renew at a later stage of the proceedings. (ECF Nos. 15, 30.)
vaccinations.” (Maney Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 156; Maney Pls.’ Mot. to Certify Class at
2, ECF No. 154.)
On January 26, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to stay this case pending resolution of
the motion for class certification in Maney. 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.) The Maney Plaintiffs’ motion
for class certification of the remaining two classes is currently due on March 1, 2021. (ECF No.
110.)
DISCUSSION
The parties dispute whether a stay pending resolution of the Maney class certification
motion is appropriate here. As explained below, the Court concludes that the relevant factors
weigh in favor of a stay.
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 non-
moving 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[.]’” DePuy, 2019
WL 851933, at *3 (quoting Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal.
1997)).
II. ANALYSIS
In opposing Defendants’ motion to stay, Alvarado argues that the motion is “Defendants’
third stall tactic,” and that Defendants have had sufficient time to respond to the allegations set
forth in his complaint. (Pl.’s Resp. at 1, ECF No. 38.) While the Court is sympathetic to
Alvarado’s concerns, 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
protect them from COVID-19. (Maney TAC ¶ 156; FAC at 1-8.) A stay will conserve judicial
resources by avoiding duplicative litigation.
Furthermore, it appears that Alvarado is a member of all three putative classes in Maney.
As explained above, the Court has already provisionally certified a Vaccine Class in Maney, of
which Alvarado is a member. In addition, the Maney Plaintiffs seek to certify an Injunctive
Relief Class composed of AICs that are at high risk of death or severe illness from COVID-19,
and a Damages Class composed of individuals who have been continuously housed in ODOC
facilities since February 1, 2020, and have contracted COVID-19. (Maney TAC ¶¶ 20-21.)
Alvarado is a member of the Maney Injunctive Relief Class because he alleges that he is
currently housed in an ODOC facility and is at high risk of death or severe illness from COVID-
19 due to several pre-existing medical conditions. (See Mot. Summ. J. Att. 1, at 5, explaining
that Alvarado suffers from a heart condition, high blood pressure, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, and asthma; Maney TAC ¶ 20, noting that the Injunctive Relief Class includes “[p]eople
with chronic lung disease, including asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease” and
“[p]eople with heart disease (such as congenital heart disease, congestive heart failure and
coronary artery disease)”). Alvarado is also a member of the Maney Damages Class because he
has contracted COVID-19. (FAC at 4.)
A stay in this case will not result in significant delay, as the motion for class certification
in Maney is currently due on March 1, 2021. (ECF No. 110.) If the Court grants the Maney
Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, Alvarado may elect to proceed as a member of the three
classes, 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, Alvarado 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 the non-moving
party. 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
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, 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. 28), and
STAYS this action pending resolution of class certification in the Maney case.2 In light of the
stay, the Court DENIES Alvarado’s motion to supplement his motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 32), motion for discovery (ECF No. 33), and motion to amend discovery (ECF No.
35), with leave to renew the motions without further briefing when the Court lifts the stay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 12th day of February, 2021.
HON. STACIE F. BECKERMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
2 “[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).