Sutherland v. Yates et al

Filing 100

ORDER GRANTING 99 Plaintiff's Motion for Stay and ORDER STAYING All Proceedings in This Action Until August 15, 2014, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/9/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM SUTHERLAND,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

1:09-cv-02152-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR STAY
(Doc. 99.)
ORDER STAYING ALL PROCEEDINGS
IN THIS ACTION UNTIL AUGUST 15,
2014

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

William Sutherland ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

20

commencing this action on December 11, 2009. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the

21

First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on December 6, 2010, against defendants

22

Correctional Officers (C/O) A. Fernando and M. Jericoff for use of excessive force in violation

23

of the Eighth Amendment, and related state claims.1 (Doc. 15.)

24
25
26
27
28

1

On June 16, 2011, the Court dismissed defendant Lieutenant R. Lantz from this action based on
Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against him under § 1983. (Doc. 20.) Plaintiff’s claims for conspiracy, due
process violations, and violations of the Penal Code were also dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983. (Id.) On February 20, 2014, the Court
issued an order granting in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of August 17, 2012, granting summary
judgment in favor of Defendant Yates. (Doc. 94.) The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s state law claim of negligent hiring. (Id. at 2 ¶4.)
1

1

On September 8, 2011, the Court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order in this action,

2

establishing a deadline May 8, 2012 for the parties to conduct discovery, and a deadline of July

3

17, 2012 for the filing of pretrial dispositive motions.2 (Doc. 27.) The pretrial deadlines have

4

now expired. On February 20, 2014, the Court denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary

5

judgment. (Doc. 94.)

6

On February 21, 2014, the court issued an order requiring the parties to notify the court

7

whether a settlement conference would be beneficial.

8

Defendants filed a response to the order, indicating their belief that a settlement conference

9

may be futile, but stating they are willing to participate in a settlement conference if the court

10

(Doc. 95.)

On March 21, 2014,

believes it would be beneficial. (Doc. 96.)

11

On May 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay the proceedings in this action for sixty

12

days, to allow him time to seek counsel. (Doc. 99.) Defendants have not opposed the motion.

13

II.

MOTION TO STAY

14

The court has inherent authority to manage the cases before it. Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

15

299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power

16

inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of

17

time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the

18

exercise of judgment which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”)

19

Stays of proceeding in federal court . . . are committed to the discretion of the trial court. See,

20

e.g., Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987).

21

Plaintiff requests a stay of the proceedings in this action while he seeks counsel to

22

represent him for all trial issues, including pretrial conferences, settlement conferences, jury

23

selection, and trial.

24

///

25

///

26
27
28

2

On September 18, 2012, the Court granted Defendants an extension of time nunc pro tunc until August
17, 2012, to file a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 54.)
2

1

Discussion

2

The Court does not lightly stay litigation, due to the possibility of prejudice to

3

defendants. However, here Defendants have not opposed Plaintiff’s motion for stay. At this

4

stage of the proceedings, a sixty-day stay will delay trial in this action for months, but such a

5

delay does not appear unreasonable considering this case has already been pending for more

6

than four years.

7

Nonetheless, the court shall stay this action until August 15, 2014, to allow Plaintiff to seek

8

counsel. After August 15, 2014, the court shall schedule a date for trial unless both Plaintiff

9

and Defendants indicate they are prepared to settle the case.

10

III.

Plaintiff has not explained why he waited so long to seek counsel.

CONCLUSION

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

Plaintiff's motion for stay, filed on May 7, 2014, is GRANTED; and

13

2.

All proceedings in this action are STAYED until August 15, 2014.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 9, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3