The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MARK THOMAS SISSELL, Case No. 6:21-cv-00253-SB
Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER
v.
KATE BROWN et al.,
Defendants.
BECKERMAN, U.S. Magistrate Judge.
Mark Sissell (“Sissell”), 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”), Colette Peters, Kimberly
Hendricks, medical staff at Santiam Correctional Institution (“SCI”), and ODOC Transport
(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.
///
///
BACKGROUND
Sissell is an adult in custody (“AIC”) of ODOC and is currently housed at SCI. On
February 16, 2021, Sissell 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.)
Ten 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 2-3, 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.)
On March 29, 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 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 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[.]’” 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
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 Sissell 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 Sissell’s
allegation that he is currently housed in an ODOC facility and that Defendants “disregarded the
risk of harm posed by COVID-19 [due] to pre-existing conditions” (See Compl. at 4-5; 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, Sissell may elect to proceed as a member of 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, Sissell 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 Sissell. 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 [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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 23rd day of April, 2021.
HON. STACIE F. BECKERMAN
United States Magistrate Judge