Coats v. Chaudhri et al

Filing 84

ORDER requiring Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Stay signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/02/2018. (21-Day Filing Deadline.) (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

1:13-cv-02032-AWI-BAM (PC)

WILLIAM THOMAS COATS,
Plaintiff,

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
STAY

v.
CHAUDHRI, et al,

(ECF No. 82)

Defendants.

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18

Plaintiff William Thomas Coats (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

19

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds

20

against Defendants Fairchild, Gundran, Gladden, Nguyen, and Convalecer for deliberate

21

indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

22

On July 10, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for more definite statement and

23

directed Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint clarifying the allegations in the original

24

complaint regarding the Defendants. (ECF No. 78.) After no response was received, the Court

25

issued an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to

26

comply with the Court’s order and for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 81.)

27
28

On September 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a response. (ECF No. 82.) Plaintiff states that on
August 7, 2018, he was placed on “suicide watch mental psych hold.” On August 13, 2018,
1

1

Plaintiff was removed from Los Angeles County Prison (“LAC”) on a psychiatric hold and taken

2

to the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, California, where Plaintiff remains housed. All of

3

Plaintiff’s property, including his legal work, remains at LAC. Plaintiff states that he will be

4

permitted access to his property when he is released from acute care to an extended care psych

5

facility, but there is no set time for this to occur. Plaintiff states that he does not want his case to

6

be dismissed with prejudice, but he does not know how to proceed. Plaintiff requests an

7

extension of time of three to six months, if possible. (Id.)

8
9

The Court construes Plaintiff’s response as a motion for a stay of this action, and finds it
appropriate to obtain a response from Defendants regarding the motion. Accordingly, Defendants

10

shall file a response to Plaintiff’s motion, (ECF No. 82), within twenty-one (21) days from the

11

date of this order.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

October 2, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2