10th Cir.

In re WILLIAM C. GARDNER

March 30, 2026 ·1:25-CV-00421-SMD-SCY ·Panel Decision · By Aisha Johnson

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by a dentist seeking to force his underlying lawsuit to proceed to discovery. The court found that the district court had properly delayed issuing a scheduling order due to pending motions to dismiss and that the record did not demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances required for mandamus relief.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:17

Background

William C. Gardner, a dentist, filed a lawsuit in New Mexico state court alleging violations of due process under Section nineteen eighty-three of Title forty-two of the United States Code and state law. The New Mexico Department of Justice removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Other defendants moved to dismiss based on improper service of process. Despite pending motions, the district court found good cause to delay issuing a scheduling order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure sixteen until the motions were resolved. Gardner filed multiple motions to compel discovery and a scheduling conference, all of which were denied by the district court.

The court’s reasoning

The court held that the district court acted within its discretion by finding good cause to delay the scheduling order due to the pending motions to dismiss. The court noted that the motions had become a moving target due to Gardner’s subsequent filings, including an amended complaint and motions to strike. The appellate court concluded that the record did not demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances required to justify the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

What it means going forward

The denial of the writ leaves the district court’s decision to delay the scheduling order in place, meaning the underlying civil rights lawsuit remains paused pending resolution of the pending motions to dismiss.