McCoy v. Kelso, et al.

Filing 195

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 170 Motion to Stay the Amended Scheduling Order Pending Resolution of the Application for Order of Enforcement of Administrative Agency Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/7/19. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH RAYMOND MCCOY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
STRONACH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No.: 1:12-cv-000983-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
STAY THE AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER
PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE
APPLICATION FOR ORDER OF
ENFORCEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY JUDGMENT
[ECF No. 170]

Plaintiff Joseph Raymond McCoy is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to stay the amended scheduling order pending

19
20

resolution of the application for order of enforcement of administrative agency judgment, filed

21

September 30, 2019.

22

I.

23

RELEVANT HISTORY
After this Court granted summary judgment to Defendants based on a failure to exhaust the

24
25

administrative remedies, Plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

26

The Ninth Circuit found in favor of Plaintiff on the exhaustion issue, and remanded the case back to

27

this Court.

28

///
1

This action is proceeding against Defendants Stronach, Gonzales, LeMay, Beltran, Fisher,

1
2

Snell and Tann for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth

3

Amendment.

4

On April 25, 2019, the Court issued an amended scheduling order. (ECF No. 129.)

5

As previously stated, on September 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to stay the

6

amended scheduling order pending resolution of the application for order of enforcement of

7

administrative agency judgment. Defendants filed an opposition on October 21, 2019. Plaintiff did

8

not file a reply and the time do so has now expired. Local Rule 230(l).

9

II.

10

DISCUSSION AND ORDER

11

On September 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for application for an order for enforcement of

12

administrative agency judgment and request for judicial notice which is addressed to the United States

13

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and lists Appeal No. 15-17148 (the previous appeal underlying

14

the prior dismissal for lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies). The Court has reviewed the

15

docket in Appeal No. 15-17148 and Plaintiff filed the same motion on September 13, 2019, which is

16

pending before the Ninth Circuit. It appears that Plaintiff is now requesting the Court stay the instant

17

action pending a ruling on his motion by the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate and the

18

Court does not find good cause or any basis to stay this action pending his motion at the Ninth Circuit.

19

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has not ordered any stay of this action in this Court. Furthermore, the Ninth

20

Circuit denied Plaintiff’s motion on November 4, 2019. (ECF No. 194.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

21

motion to stay is DENIED.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated:

25

November 7, 2019
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2