# Parkerson v. Brown > District Court, D. Oregon · June 1, 2021 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10393345 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon - **Decided:** June 1, 2021 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10393345 ## Opinion text IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON WILLIAM J. PARKERSON et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00214-SB Plaintiffs, OPINION AND ORDER v. KATE BROWN et al., Defendant. BECKERMAN, U.S. Magistrate Judge. William Parkerson (“Parkerson”), a self-represented litigant in the custody of the Oregon Department of Corrections (“ODOC”), filed this civil rights action on behalf of himself and several other adults in custody (“AICs”) (together, “Plaintiffs”). 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 Parkerson is currently housed at the Two Rivers Correctional Institution. On February 9, 2021, Parkerson filed this action, alleging that ODOC knowingly exposed Plaintiffs to COVID- 19 and that ODOC’s failure adequately to respond to COVID-19 violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Plaintiffs’ Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Compl., 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. 42; 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 Fourth Am. Compl. (“FAC”), ECF No. 223.) The Maney Plaintiffs assert allegations on behalf of a class of similarly situated AICs, and propose three classes: (1) the “Damages Class”; (2); the “Vaccine Class”; and (3) the “Wrongful Death Class.” (Maney FAC ¶¶ 24-26.) 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 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 May 3, 2021, the Maney Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. (ECF No. 203.) That same day, Defendants filed a motion to stay this matter pending resolution of the motion for class certification in Maney. (Defs.’ Mot. to Stay at 1.) 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 Eighth Amendment claims alleging that ODOC officials failed adequately to protect them from COVID-19. (Maney FAC ¶¶ 101, 110; Compl. at 4.) A stay will conserve judicial resources by avoiding duplicative litigation. Furthermore, it appears that Plaintiffs may be members of the Damages Class composed of individuals who have been continuously housed in ODOC facilities since February 1, 2020, and have contracted COVID-19, based on Plaintiffs’ allegation that they were exposed to COVID-19 while housed at an ODOC facility, exhibited COVID-19 symptoms, and tested positive for the virus. (Compl. at 1, 4-6, 11; Decl. of Donald Jackson ¶ 2, ECF No. 13, alleging that “on January 11, 2021, I tested positive for the coronavirus”; Decl. of Jimmy Fears at 1, ECF No. 15, alleging that “I was tested for COVID 19 on 1-10-21 and I got the results back on 1-14- 21 that I was positive”; Decl. of William Parkerson at 1, ECF No. 11, noting that “[o]n or about 12/3/20 I started experiencing [COVID-19] symptoms which started with sneezing, coughing, chills then progressed into full body pain, bac[k] ache, [and] fever”; Medical Evidence at 9, ECF No. 28, a lung X-Ray report indicating Parkerson’s medical history as “Covid recovered. Still short of breath”; Maney FAC ¶ 24.) A stay in this case will not result in significant delay, as the motion for class certification in Maney is currently pending. (ECF No. 203.) If the Court grants the Maney Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, Plaintiffs may elect to proceed as members of the Damages Class, or they may opt out and litigate their case separately. 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, Plaintiffs face 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 Plaintiffs. 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. 42), and STAYS this action pending resolution of class certification in the Maney case. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 1st day of June, 2021. HON. STACIE F. BECKERMAN United States Magistrate Judge --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10393345. Public record. Not legal advice.