ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

MICHAEL E. HEGARTY, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery and Vacate June 6, 2012 Scheduling Conference [filed June 4, 2012; docket #32]. The motion has been referred to this Court for disposition [docket #33]. Oral argument would not materially assist the Court in adjudicating this motion. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion is granted.

I. Background

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Colorado State Penitentiary, originated this action on September 29, 2011, and is proceeding pro se. During initial review, Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint (docket #6), then ordered to file a second amended complaint on January 31, 2012 (docket #11). Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, as modified by the Court's March 20, 2012 order (docket #18) is the operative pleading in this matter. In essence, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have denied him medical care in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Second Amended Complaint, docket #14, at 4-5. On May 21, 2012, the Defendants responded to the Second Amended Complaint by filing a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), asserting, among other defenses, that they are entitled to qualified immunity in their personal capacities. See docket #27. Shortly thereafter, Defendants filed the present Motion to Stay, stating that, "[t]he `purely legal question' of qualified immunity should be decided before pre-trial discovery is conducted." Docket #32 at 2.

II. Discussion

The Supreme Court has emphasized the broad protection qualified immunity affords, giving officials "a right, not merely to avoid `standing trial,' but also to avoid the burdens of `such pretrial matters as discovery.'" Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308 (1996) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)); see also Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998). Consequently, courts should resolve the purely legal question raised by a qualified immunity defense at the earliest possible stage in litigation. Albright v. Rodriguez, 51 F.3d 1531, 1534 (10th Cir. 1995); see also Medina v. Cram, 252 F.3d 1124, 1127-28 (10th Cir. 2001).

In this case, Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint asserting, among other defenses, that they enjoy qualified immunity from the Plaintiff's claims. The Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Because Defendant's Motion to Dismiss raises a legal question of this Court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute, the question should be resolved as early as possible in the litigation. See Albright, 51 F.3d at 1534. The case is still in the early stages of litigation; no scheduling conference has been held, and Defendants responded to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint with the pending motion to dismiss that could fully dispose of Plaintiff's claims before engaging the discovery process. Consequently, the Court will grant a temporary stay of the proceedings in this matter pending the disposition of the Motion to Dismiss.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery and Vacate June 6, 2012 Scheduling Conference [filed June 4, 2012; docket #32] is granted. The proceedings of this case are hereby stayed pending the District Court's ruling on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Scheduling Conference currently set for June 6, 2012 is vacated. The parties are directed to submit a status report within five days of the entry of any order adjudicating the pending Motion to Dismiss.