Rodriguez v. Hefflefinger, et al.

Filing 20

ORDER denying 19 Motion to Stay and granting extension of time signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/12/2014. ( Amended Complaint due by 6/30/2014). (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

LUIS V. RODRIGUEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

vs.
HEFFLEFINGER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13cv00231 LJO DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO STAY ACTION
(Document 19)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF FORTYFIVE (45) DAY EXTENSION OF TIME

16
17

Plaintiff Luis V. Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on February 14, 2013. On

19

September 17, 2013, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found certain claims

20
21
22

cognizable. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court
of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable claims.
On December 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The Court

23

screened the FAC on April 23, 2014, and found certain cognizable claims. The Court again
24
25
26
27

ordered Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint, or notify the Court of his willingness to
proceed only on the cognizable claims, within thirty (30) days. The Court instructed Plaintiff
that if he chose to amend, this would be his final opportunity to do so.

28
1

1
2
3
4

On May 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document in which he requested a stay of the
proceedings. Plaintiff states that he cannot meaningfully or reasonably pursue the litigation
under his current conditions of confinement. Plaintiff details four months of what he contends to
be retaliatory behavior by prison staff.

5

The Court will not grant an indefinite stay of this action. The Court has explained that
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff’s FAC states certain cognizable claims. If Plaintiff choses to move forward only on the
cognizable claims, the next step will simply be completion of service documents for service by
the United States Marshal. While filing an amended complaint may be more time-intensive, it

10

does not require a stay. The Court will grant Plaintiff a forty-five day extension of time within

11

which to either file an amended complaint, or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only

12

on the cognizable claims.

13
14

If Plaintiff fails to respond to this order, the Court will recommend that this action be
dismissed.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

May 12, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2