Benyamini v. Manjuano et al

Filing 114

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/22/2011 denying 110 Motion to Stay proceedings and granting extension of time to file response to 106 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (Response due by 9/22/2011.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

17

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DEBBIE MANJUANO, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
______________________________)

18

I.

12
13
14
15
16

ROBERT BENYAMINI,

1:06-cv-01096-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING
PROCEEDINGS
(Doc. 110.)

MOTION

TO

STAY

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. 106.)
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

BACKGROUND

19

Robert Benyamini (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

20

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the original Complaint on August 21,

21

2006, and this action now proceeds on the Third Amended Complaint filed on May 23, 2008. (Docs.

22

1, 35.) On August 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay these proceedings. (Doc. 110.)

23

II.

MOTION TO STAY

24

Plaintiff seeks a stay of the proceedings in this action on the grounds that he may be moved, he

25

suffers from claustrophobia, he is on forced medication, his due process rights will be violated if the case

26

is not stayed and all discovery is not halted, and he is having trouble obtaining copies of his county

27

grievance forms.

28

1

1

As Plaintiff has been previously advised, the Court does not lightly stay litigation, due to the

2

possibility of prejudice to defendants. Plaintiff’s only pending deadline in this action is to file a response

3

to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed on August 8, 2011. Although the court recognizes

4

that Plaintiff is challenged by his disabilities and prison conditions, Plaintiff’s only remedy is not a stay

5

of this action. This action has been pending since August 21, 2006, and an extended delay shall not be

6

granted without good cause. In the alternative, Plaintiff shall be granted additional time to meet his

7

pending case deadline to file a response to the motion for summary judgment. Therefore, Plaintiff's

8

motion for stay shall be denied.

9

III.

CONCLUSION

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

Plaintiff's motion to stay this action, filed on August 11, 2011, is DENIED;

12

2.

Plaintiff is GRANTED an extension of time until thirty days from the date of service of

13

this order in which to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed

14

on August 8, 2011;

15

3.

16

Should Plaintiff require a further extension of time, he must file a motion before the
expiration of the current deadline; and

17

4.

Further extensions of time shall not be granted without a showing of good cause.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:
6i0kij

August 22, 2011

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2