Benyamini v. Manjuano et al

Filing 141

ORDER Denying 131 Motion for Transfer; ORDER Denying 131 137 Motion for Stay based on Prison Conditions and Plaintiff's Medical Condition; ORDER Granting in Part 138 Motion for Stay Pending Appeal; ORDER Staying Case Against Defendant Mandujano, Pending Appeal; ORDER Vacating Defendant Mandujano's 106 Motion for Summary Judgment from Court Calendar, Pending Appeal, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/17/2011. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ROBERT BENYAMINI,

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

1:06-cv-01096-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TRANSFER
(Doc. 131.)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY
BASED ON PRISON CONDITIONS AND
PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL CONDITION
(Docs. 131, 137.)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR
STAY PENDING APPEAL
(Doc. 138.)
ORDER STAYING CASE AGAINST
DEFENDANT MANDUJANO, PENDING
APPEAL
ORDER VACATING DEFENDANT
MANDUJANO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT FROM COURT CALENDAR,
PENDING APPEAL
(Doc. 106.)

23
24
25

I.

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

26

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

27

21, 2006, and this action now proceeds on the Third Amended Complaint filed on May 23, 2008,

28

1

1

against defendants Mandujano,1 Wilcox, Wilkerson, and O’Grady, on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment

2

claims for adverse conditions of confinement (Docs. 1, 35.) On October 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed an

3

“emergency” motion for stay of this action and a request to be transferred to another prison. (Doc.

4

131.) On October 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed two additional motions for stay of this action. (Docs. 137,

5

138.)

6

II.

7

MOTION FOR TRANSFER
Plaintiff requests to be transferred to another prison because he is being retaliated against by

8

officers employed at CSP-SAC where he is currently incarcerated. The Court lacks jurisdiction to

9

issue an order requiring prison officials to transfer him based on retaliatory acts occurring after this

10

action was filed, because the Court does not have such a case or controversy before it in this action.

11

See Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985); City of Los

12

Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v.

13

Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58

14

(1982). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for transfer shall be denied.

15
16

III.

MOTION FOR STAY BASED ON PRISON CONDITIONS AND PLAINTIFF’S
MEDICAL CONDITION

17

Plaintiff requests an “emergency” stay of this action because he is presently detained in

18

administrative segregation (“Ad-Seg”) without access to all of his legal property, and he has three

19

deadlines pending in this case. Plaintiff was moved to Ad-Seg based on the prison’s claim that

20

confidential information was received accusing Plaintiff of assaulting his cell mate. Plaintiff claims

21

he did not assault his cell mate, and his detention in Ad-Seg is a retaliatory action for filing a Form

22

602 grievance against Sgt. B. Jones. On October 7, 2011, Plaintiff was given access to his legal

23

property, but many of the documents were missing, including those needed to litigate this action.

24

Plaintiff also requests a stay because he has claustrophobia, which prevents him from using the law

25
26

1

27

In the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff spelled this defendants last name as Manjuano. (Doc. 35.) Defendant
spells her last name as Mandujano. (Doc. 79.) The Court uses defendant’s spelling. However, the case title assigned at case
opening shall not be changed.

28

2

1

library, and he is on forced medication for psychological disorders, which incapacitates him.

2

Plaintiff’s motion for stay based on prison conditions and Plaintiff’s medical condition shall

3

be denied. Plaintiff has brought numerous motions for stay in this action and has been advised that

4

the Court does not lightly stay litigation, due to the possibility of prejudice to defendants. Plaintiff’s

5

only remedy for the conditions he describes is not a stay of this entire action. If Plaintiff requires

6

additional time to meet deadlines in his action, he should file a motion for extension of time,

7

not a motion for stay. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the Court to stay this action based on

8

the conditions Plaintiff describes. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for stay based on prison conditions

9

and his medical condition shall be denied.

10
11

IV.

MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
Plaintiff also requests a stay of this action pending resolution of the appeal he filed on

12

October 11, 2011. Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a party may bring a

13

motion in the district court for stay of a judgment or order of the district court pending appeal. Fed.

14

R. App. P. 8(a)(1)(A). On October 11, 2011, Plaintiff appealed the district court’s order denying his

15

motion for entry of default against defendant Debbie Mandujano. (Doc. 132.) Plaintiff argues that

16

this action should be stayed pending the appeal, because a decision in Plaintiff’s favor will resolve

17

the litigation against defendant Mandujano.

18

Now pending in this action is defendant Mandujano’s motion for summary judgment, filed on

19

August 30, 2011. (Doc. 106.) Pursuant to the Court’s order entered on September 22, 2011,

20

Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion is due on or before October 25, 2011. (Doc. 125.) Plaintiff has

21

shown good cause for the Court to stay this case against defendant Mandujano, pending resolution of

22

Plaintiff’s appeal. However, Plaintiff has not shown good cause to stay the case against defendants

23

Wilcox, O’Grady, or Wilkerson.2 Accordingly, the Court shall stay the case against defendant

24

Mandujano, vacating defendant Mandujano’s motion for summary judgment from the Court’s

25

calendar, pending the resolution of Plaintiff’s appeal. Plaintiff shall be excused from filing an

26
27
28

2

This finding is based in part on the fact that defendant Mandujano is represented by separate counsel.

3

1

opposition to the motion for summary judgment at this stage of the proceedings. If needed, the Court

2

shall establish a new deadline for Plaintiff to file an opposition to defendant Mandujano’s motion for

3

summary judgment after the resolution of Plaintiff’s appeal.

4

IV.

CONCLUSION

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

Plaintiff's motion for transfer is DENIED;

7

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for stay based on prison conditions and Plaintiff’s medical

8

condition is DENIED;

9

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for stay pending appeal is GRANTED in part;

10

4.

Plaintiff’s case against defendant Mandujano is stayed pending resolution of

11

Plaintiff’s appeal filed on October 11, 2011;

12

5.

Defendant Mandujano’s motion for summary judgment, filed on August 30, 2011, is

13

VACATED from the Court’s calendar pending resolution of Plaintiff’s appeal filed

14

on October 11, 2011;

15

6.

16

Plaintiff is excused from filing an opposition to the motion for summary judgment at
this stage of the proceedings;

17

7.

If needed, the Court shall establish a new deadline for Plaintiff to file an opposition to

18

defendant Mandujano’s motion for summary judgment after the resolution of

19

Plaintiff’s appeal; and

20

8.

This order does not act as a stay of the litigation against defendants Wilcox, O’Grady,

21

and Wilkerson.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated:
6i0kij

October 17, 2011

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

4