Brown v. Karlow et al

Filing 23

ORDER DENYING 22 Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Action and ORDER GRANTING Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 1/7/2016. Amended Complaint due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

E’DRICK BROWN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
PETERSON,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:14cv00705 DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STAY ACTION
(Document 22)
ORDER GRANTING
EXTENSION OF TIME

16

Plaintiff E’drick Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

pauperis in this civil rights action. Pursuant to Court order, Plaintiff filed a First Amended

19

Complaint on November 5, 2014. On March 31, 2015, the Court dismissed the First Amended

20

Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff was given thirty days to file an amended complaint.

21

Since March 31, 2015, the Court has granted Plaintiff numerous extensions of time.

22

On January 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay this action. He states that he

23

transferred to High Desert State Prison on October 28, 2015, and staff cannot locate his amended
24
25
26
27
28

complaint and related documents. Plaintiff therefore requests that the Court stay the action until
staff can locate his documents.
///
///
1

1

DISCUSSION

2
3
4
5

“The district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to
control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997), citing Landis v. North
American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “The proponent of the stay bears the burden of
establishing its need.” Id. at 706. The Court considers the following factors when ruling on a

6
7
8
9

request to stay proceedings: (1) the possible damage which may result from the granting of a
stay, (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and
(3) the orderly course of justice, measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues,

10

proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. Filtrol Corp. v.

11

Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242, 244 (9th Cir.1972), quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th

12

Cir.1962).

13

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a need for a stay. While Plaintiff was recently transferred

14

and does not have his property, it is the Court’s experience that prison transfers often result in

15

temporary separation from property. It is reasonable to believe that this is temporary and that

16

Plaintiff’s property issue will be resolved in a reasonable time.

17
18

The Court also notes that this action has been pending since May 2014, and Plaintiff has
had since March 31, 2015, to file an amended complaint. Granting a stay at this juncture will

19

result only in further delay in the prosecution of this action.
20

Although Plaintiff’s request for a stay is DENIED, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff an

21
22
23

extension of time within which to file an amended complaint. The Court has been lenient with
Plaintiff’s failure to meet established deadlines given the lockdowns and transfers, but the Court

24

will not continue to grant extensions indefinitely.

25

///

26

///

27
28
2

1
2

Accordingly, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of
service of this order.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:
6

/s/ Dennis

January 7, 2016

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3