Hunter v. Attorney General for the State of California et al

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 23 Motion For a Stay, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/29/2011. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6

LEROY DEWITT HUNTER,

7

Plaintiff,

8

1:10-cv-0096-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR A STAY

v.
(ECF No. 23)

9

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

10
Defendants.
11
12
________________________________/
13
Plaintiff Leroy Dewitt Hunter (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and
14
in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
15
Plaintiff initiated this action on January 19, 2010. On September 29, 2011, the
16
Court issued a Findings and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be
17
dismissed as duplicative. (ECF No. 22.) In lieu of filing objections to this Findings and
18
Recommendation, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay. (Mot., ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff wishes to
19
stay his cases before this Court until he is released from prison on March 11, 2012. (Id.)
20
Plaintiff alleges that he can no longer write due to serious medical conditions. (Id.)
21
Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay the Proceedings is currently before the Court.
22
The United States Supreme Court has clearly indicated that “the power to stay
23
proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of
24
the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for
25
litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh
26
competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. North America Co., 299
27
U.S. 248, 254-55, 57 S.Ct. 163 (1936). In this regard, “the proponent of the stay bears the
28

1

burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706, 117 S.Ct. 1636

2

(1997).

3

In his Motion to Stay the Proceedings, Plaintiff states that he is not receiving

4

adequate medical care, and it is possible that he will suffer from permanent blindness.

5

(Mot. at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that he previously filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel due to his

6

blindness, and that he can no longer write or see to write. (Id.) However, since filing his

7

Motion for Counsel, Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 19) and the current

8

motion before this Court (ECF No. 23). Both actions belie the suggestion that Plaintiff is

9

disabled from proceeding with this action at this time. Moreover, Plaintiff has made no

10

showing that his ability to litigate the action would differ materially following his release

11

from custody. The Court cannot stay an action for the convenience of a party. Plaintiff has

12

not established the need for a stay.

13
14

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay the Proceedings
be DENIED.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:
ci4d6

November 29, 2011

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-