Gray v. Johnson et al
Filing
303
ORDER DENYING 300 Motion for Stay and GRANTING Motion for Extension of Time signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/5/2018. Sixth Amended Complaint due within forty-five (45) days. Declaration due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
1:13-cv-01473-DAD-GSA (PC)
DANA GRAY,
D. K. JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE
DECLARATION AS INSTRUCTED BY
THIS ORDER
FORTY-FIVE-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE
SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
17
18
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY
AND GRANTING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
(ECF No. 300.)
I.
BACKGROUND
19
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '
20
1983. On January 5, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for stay of the proceedings in this case and a
21
motion for extension of time to file a sixth amended complaint. (ECF No. 300.) On January 9,
22
2018, defendant Rebel (Defendant”) filed an opposition to the motions. (ECF No. 302.) Plaintiff
23
has not filed a reply to the opposition, and the time to file a reply has passed. L.R. 230(l).
24
II.
MOTION FOR STAY AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
25
Plaintiff requests a ninety-day stay of the proceedings in this action and an additional
26
thirty days to file her sixth amended complaint, because she is “going out to surgery January 4th,
27
2018.” (ECF No. 300 at 1.) Plaintiff asserts that her surgery is “a 4 level lumbar fusion.” (Id.)
28
1
1
In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not shown good cause for a stay of the
2
proceedings or an extension of time as she has not submitted any medical evidence showing that
3
she is scheduled for surgery or has had a “4 level lumbar fusion.” (ECF No. 302 at 1:27.)
4
Defendant also notes that Plaintiff did not mention her surgery in other recent motions.
5
Defendant argues that Plaintiff has had ample time to prepare her sixth amended complaint as
6
shown by Plaintiff’s implication that she was prepared to file it on August 7, 2017, when she
7
requested leave to file the sixth amended complaint.
8
III.
9
DISCUSSION
A.
Motion for Stay
10
The court has inherent authority to manage the cases before it. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299
11
U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in
12
every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort
13
for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of
14
judgment which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”) Stays of
15
proceedings in federal court, including stays of discovery, are committed to the discretion of the
16
trial court. See, e.g., Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987).
17
This court does not lightly stay litigation, due to the possibility of prejudice to defendants.
18
Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff has not shown good cause for a ninety-day stay of the
19
proceedings has merit. Plaintiff offers no evidence in her motion except her own statement that
20
she was scheduled for surgery on January 4, 2018. Further, defendants may be prejudiced if this
21
case is delayed. The case has been pending for more than three years. Thus, the court finds no
22
good cause for a ninety-day stay.
23
Moreover, even if Plaintiff is presently recovering from major surgery, and cannot
24
proceed with the litigation, a stay of the entire action is not Plaintiff’s only remedy. Therefore,
25
Plaintiff’s motion for stay shall be denied
26
B.
Motion for Extension of Time
27
Under Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court has discretion to extend
28
filing deadlines. If a party makes a request for additional time “before the original time or its
2
1
extension expires,” then the court may extend the deadline “for good cause.” See Fed. R. Civ. P.
2
6(b)(1)(A).
On December 12, 2017, the court granted Plaintiff sixty days in which to file a sixth
3
4
amended complaint. (ECF No. 296.)
Now, Plaintiff requests an extension of the sixty-day
5
deadline, alleging that she was scheduled for surgery and will need time to recover before she can
6
file the sixth amended complaint.
7
In the course of this action, Plaintiff has provided evidence in her prior complaints that
8
she suffers from serious lower back pain and has been treated by physicians since 1998. (See
9
ECF Nos. 1, 15, 28, 41, 45.) In light of her medical history, the court finds it plausible that
10
Plaintiff was scheduled for spinal surgery. Therefore, affording Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt,1
11
the court finds good cause to grant her a forty-five-day extension of time to file the Sixth
12
amended complaint. However, Plaintiff shall be required to file a written declaration within thirty
13
days of the date of service of this order, signed under penalty of perjury,2 informing the court of
14
the status of her recovery from surgery, with documentary evidence of the surgery and her
15
progress.
16
IV.
CONCLUSION
17
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
18
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for stay, filed on January 5, 2018, is DENIED;
19
2.
Plaintiff is GRANTED forty-five days from the date of service of this order to file
her sixth amended complaint, pursuant to the court’s order of December 12, 2017;
20
3.
21
Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff is ordered to file
22
a written status report with the court, signed under penalty of perjury, informing
23
the court of the status of her recovery from surgery, with documentary evidence of
24
25
26
27
28
1
Where a plaintiff appears in pro per in a civil rights case, the court must construe the pleadings liberally and afford
plaintiff any benefit of the doubt. See Karim–Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988.)
2
The declaration must be dated and signed by Plaintiff, attesting under penalty of perjury to facts known by the
declarant, in substantially the following form: AI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed on (date) . (Signature).@ Such a declaration, if properly prepared, is admissible in federal court
with the same effect as an affidavit. 28 U.S.C. ' 1746.
3
the surgery and her progress;
1
2
4.
the prior deadline; and
3
4
5.
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that
this case be dismissed.
5
6
Any further motions for extension of time to must be filed before the expiration of
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated:
February 5, 2018
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?