Bealer v. Warden of K.V.S.P. et al

Filing 98

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 93 Motion for Stay of Proceedings, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/23/2015. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTWOINE BEALER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:12-cv-01516-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
(ECF No. 93.)

R. BRANNUM, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Antwoine Bealer ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

with this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

20

Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on September 14, 2012. (ECF No. 1.)

21

This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint filed on March 28, 2014,

22

against defendants Sergeant R. Brannum and Correctional Officer S. Rios, for use of excessive

23

force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 21.)

24

On September 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for stay of the proceedings in this

25

action. (ECF No. 93.)

26

II.

27
28

MOTION TO STAY
Plaintiff requests a stay of the proceedings in this action until he has access to his

property and access to the law library.

Plaintiff asserts that on July 27, 2015, he was
1

1

transferred to the Security Housing Unit at Corcoran State Prison, and he has not received any

2

of his property. Plaintiff also asserts that he has not gained access to the law library, although

3

he has requested Priority Legal Use and General Legal Use of the library.

4

The Court does not lightly stay litigation, due to the possibility of prejudice to

5

defendants. Moreover, a stay of the proceedings is not Plaintiff’s only remedy to gain an

6

extension of time. Plaintiff’s only current deadline pending in this case is to file objections to

7

the findings and recommendations issued on September 16, 2015.

8

additional time to file objections, he should file a motion for extension of time before the

9

expiration of the current deadline.

10
11
12

III.

If Plaintiff requires

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for stay,

filed on September 14, 2015, is DENIED.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 23, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2