ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY AND EXTENSION OF TIME

Re: Dkt. Nos. 17, 19

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by opening his legal mail outside of his presence. The Court found the claims, when liberally construed, stated cognizable grounds for relief, and ordered the complaint served on Defendants. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and for qualified immunity based upon the allegations in the complaint. Plaintiff has propounded discovery, which Defendants seek to stay until the resolution of their qualified immunity argument. Generally, discovery should be stayed until the threshold issue of qualified immunity is resolved. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). In some cases discovery may be necessary in order to resolve the qualified immunity defense, but here Defendants assert qualified immunity only on the basis of the allegations in the complaint. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to stay discovery is GRANTED and discovery is STAYED until the resolution of the qualified immunity defense raised in Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Good cause appearing, Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time in which to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The opposition is due on or before October 28, 2016. Defendants shall file a reply brief within 14 days of the date any opposition is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.