Benyamini v. Manjuano et al

Filing 190

ORDER Denying Motion For Investigation And For Stay (Doc. 189 ), ORDER Granting Extension Of Time To File Opposition To Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. 152 ), Sixty Day Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on July 2, 2012. (Response due by 9/5/2012)(Fahrney, 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

ROBERT BENYAMINI,

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

18

1:06-cv-01096-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
INVESTIGATION AND FOR STAY
(Doc. 189.)
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 152)
SIXTY DAY DEADLINE

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

19

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

20

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

21

1, 35.) On June 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for the Court to direct an investigation and stay the

22

proceedings in all of his cases. (Doc. 189.)

23

I.

MOTION FOR INVESTIGATION

24

Plaintiff requests a Court order “directing full investigation.” The Court is not authorized to

25

direct or conduct investigations on Plaintiff’s behalf. “‘[T]he expenditure of public funds [on behalf of

26

an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress . . . .’” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210,

27

211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. MacCollum, 426 U.S. 317, 321, 96 S.Ct. 2086 (1976)).

28

1

1

The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for the Court to direct

2

or conduct investigations. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an investigation shall

3

be denied.

4

II.

MOTION FOR STAY

5

Plaintiff requests a stay of the proceedings in all of his cases pending at the court, because he was

6

recently transferred to Atascadero State Prison and does not have access to his property. As Plaintiff is

7

aware, the Court does not lightly stay litigation, due to the possibility of prejudice to defendants.

8

Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the Court to stay all proceedings in this action, and his motion

9

shall be denied.1 However, Plaintiff shall be granted an extension of time in which to file his opposition

10

to Defendants O’Grady, Wilcox and Wilkerson’s motion for summary judgment of January 6, 2012.

11

III.

CONCLUSION

12

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

14

Plaintiff's motion for an investigation and for stay of this action, filed on June 28, 2012,
is DENIED;

15

2.

Within sixty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a response to

16

Defendants O’Grady, Wilcox and Wilkerson’s motion for summary judgment of January

17

6, 2012;

18

3.

19

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

20

4.

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

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated:
6i0kij

July 2, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
1

27

To request a stay of more than one case, Plaintiff must file a separate motion in each case for the Court’s
consideration.

28

2