ORDER

G. R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.

Defendants in this prisoner civil rights action move for judgment on the pleadings and to stay discovery. Does. 10 & 11 at 2 (arguing, inter alia, that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies). Pending the outcome of their motion for judgment on the pleadings, defendants have asked that discovery be stayed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 & 26. Doc. 11 at 2-3 (arguing that defendants' immunity defenses, "which go in part to subject matter jurisdiction . . . would be effectively lost if defendants are required to engage in any discovery related activities before their entitlement to immunity is resolved."). Plaintiff opposes. Doc. 13.

Under the PLRA exhaustion provision, a prisoner must exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing an action that challenges the conditions of his confinement. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion is a "pre-condition to suit" that must be enforced even if the available administrative remedies are either "futile or inadequate." Harris v. Garner, 190 F.3d 1279, 1285-86 (11th Cir. 1999); see also Jones u. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 199-200 (2007) ("There is no question that exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA").1 Because defendants have moved for judgment on the pleadings and put forward proof showing that plaintiff failed to exhaust and defendants did not inhibit his efforts to do so, their motion is likely to granted.2 See Turner v. Burnside, 542 F.3d 1077, 1082 (11th Cir. 2008); Harris, 190 F.3d at 1285-86. The myriad additional arguments for dismissal (see doe. 10 (providing 15 arguments in support of dismissing all of plaintiff's claims) further bolster the prudence of staying discovery now. A stay of discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss is therefore warranted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

The Court therefore GRANTS defendants' motion to stay pending disposition of their motion for judgment on the pleadings. Doc. 11.

SO ORDERED.