Gorrell v. Sneath et al

Filing 108

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Stay Pending Disposition of His Habeas Corpus Petition and DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice re 106 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/19/2013. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILSON GORRELL,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

THOMAS SNEATH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-0554 - JLT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
STAY PENDING DISPOSITION OF HIS HABEAS
CORPUS PETITION AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
(Doc. 106)

16
Wilson Gorrell (“Plaintiff”) seeks a stay of the action pending disposition of his Petition for

17
18

Writ of Habeas Corpus, currently before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 106). In

19

addition, Plaintiff seeks to have judicial notice taken of the petition and documents attached as part of

20

an appendix to his petition. Id. at 2.

21

I.

22

Request for Judicial Notice
The Court may take notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination by

23

resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States

24

v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1993). The record of a court proceeding is a source

25

whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, and judicial notice may be taken of court records.

26

Mullis v. United States Bank. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 n.9 (9th Cir. 1987); Valerio v. Boise Cascade

27

Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Colonial

28

Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236m 1239 (4th Cir. 1989); Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc.,
1

1

615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th Cir. 1980). However, here it is not clear whether Plaintiff seeks to have judicial

2

notice taken of the fact that the documents exist, or the facts contained in documents. Further, Plaintiff

3

has failed to explain why he seeks judicial notice of these documents. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request

4

for judicial notice is DENIED.

5

II.

6

Motion to Stay
The Supreme Court explained the “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent

7

in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for

8

itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936). To

9

evaluate whether to stay an action, the Court must the weigh competing interests that will be affected

10

by the grant or refusal to grant a stay, including: (1) the possible damage which may result from the

11

granting of a stay; (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go

12

forward; and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of simplifying or complicating of

13

issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall,

14

300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55)). The party seeking a stay “bears

15

the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997) (citing Landis, 299

16

U.S. at 255). The decision whether to grant a stay is committed to the discretion of the Court.

17

Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007).

18

In this case, Plaintiff contends a stay is appropriate “pending the disposition of the § 2241

19

Habeas Petition . . . in light of the fact that decision will be based on the veracity of the Defendants’

20

claims and evidence.” (Doc. 106 at 3) (citing CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist

21

LEXIS 53663 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2013). In CollegeSource, the district court noted the plaintiff filed a

22

case against the same defendant in Pennsylvania, raising many of the same causes of action. Id. at *2-4.

23

While the related action was pending in the Southern District, the Pennsylvania court granted a motion

24

for summary judgment on all of the claims. Id. at *6. CollegeSource then appealed the Pennsylvania

25

action to the Third Circuit. Id. Because the claims on appeal before the Third Circuit were “the same

26

or similar to the causes of action filed” in the Southern District, the court noted “a reversal by the Third

27

Circuit [would] affect the decision of this Court.” Id. at *9.

28

In contrast, here the parties are not the same as in the action pending before the Eleventh
2

1

Circuit. A decision by the Eleventh Circuit on Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus will not

2

affect the decision of this Court, because there is no potential for issue or claim preclusion. Because

3

Plaintiff has not carried his burden to demonstrate a stay is appropriate, his motion is DENIED.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 19, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3