Franklin v. United States

Filing 104

ORDER DENYING 103 Plaintiff's Motion for Stay signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/27/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

EMERY I. FRANKLIN,
Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. 1:10-cv-00142-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR STAY

v.
(ECF No. 103)

13
14

UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

15
16
17

Plaintiff Emery I. Franklin is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) action. A Pretrial Conference is set for

19

June 13, 2014. Trial is set for August 12, 2014.

20
21
22

Plaintiff has filed a “Letter to the Judge”, seeking to stay this action because he has
been transferred to a new facility and separated from his legal property.
“The district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its

23

power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706–07 (1997), citing

24

Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “The proponent of the stay bears

25

the burden of establishing its need.” Id. at 706. The Court considers the following factors

26

when ruling on a request to stay proceedings: (1) the possible damage which may result

27

from the granting of a stay, (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being

28

required to go forward, and (3) the orderly course of justice, measured in terms of the
1

1

simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected

2

to result from a stay. Filtrol Corp. v. Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242, 244 (9th Cir. 1972), quoting

3

CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962).

4

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate need for a stay. There is no reason to believe that this

5

transfer will result in anything but a temporary separation between Plaintiff and his property.

6

Plaintiff's access to his legal materials should be regained in sufficient time for him to

7

prepare his case. See Young v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000) (strength of

8

justification for stay should balance length of any stay granted).

9

Additionally, staying this action would create a risk of prejudice to the Defendant.

10

“[D]elay inherently increases the risk that witnesses' memories will fade and evidence will

11

become stale”. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 991 (9th Cir. 1999); see

12

Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976) (a presumption of injury arises

13

from delay in resolving an action). Delay also disrupts the Court's schedules.

14
15

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Letter to the Judge (ECF No. 103), construed
as a motion for stay is DENIED.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 27, 2014

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2