Bell v. St. Claire et al

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING 24 Second Motion for Stay and REQUIRING Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint Within Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/25/2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
ANTHONY BELL,

10

Plaintiff,

11
v.

12

Case No. 1:13-cv-01594-SKO (PC)
ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR
STAY AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS

DR. JACK ST. CLAIR, et al.,

13

(Doc. 24)
Defendants.

14

_____________________________________/

15
16

Plaintiff Anthony Bell, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

17

18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 1, 2013. On May 20, 2014, the Court
19 dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. On July 3, 2014,
20 Plaintiff filed a second motion seeking to stay this action until he is released from custody on
1
21 February 22, 2015.

Although Plaintiff’s second motion provides his release date for the first time, the Court

22

23 cannot stay the action for approximately seven months based on Plaintiff’s desire to obtain
24 counsel once he is released. The reason underlying Plaintiff’s request does not constitute good
25 cause, and the Court’s need to manage its dockets greatly outweighs what amounts to a request for
26 a lengthy stay based on convenience. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint.
27
28

1

Plaintiff previously filed a notice of voluntary dismissal and a motion for a stay, but neither filing was signed and
they were stricken from the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); Local Rule 130. (Docs. 18-21.)

1

In the alternative, Plaintiff may elect to dismiss the action voluntarily and pursue it at a

2 later date, as he previously attempted to do.2
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a stay is HEREBY DENIED, but Plaintiff is

3

4 GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this order within which to file an amended
5 complaint in compliance with the screening order.
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

8

July 25, 2014

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

If Plaintiff files a notice of voluntary dismissal, the dismissal is without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A), (B).
However, the Court expresses no opinion regarding the effect of the statute of limitations on Plaintiff’s claims, or on
any other issue which may affect the viability of Plaintiff’s claims.

2