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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?