Fisher v. Director of OPS of CDCR

Filing 87

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motions To Stay (ECF Nos. 68 , 69 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/5/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10

GARY FRANCIS FISHER,
aka Gary Dale Barger,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

v.
YVONNE BEUSTER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:14-cv-00901-BAM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO STAY
(ECF Nos. 68, 69)

15
16

Plaintiff Gary Frances Fisher (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

17

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

18

action on June 20, 2013, and the matter was transferred to this Court on June 12, 2014.

19

On March 4, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s amended complaint with leave to

20

amend. (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, in four parts, on April 8,

21

2015. (ECF Nos. 77, 78, 79, 80.) Plaintiff also flooded the Court with more than twenty

22

separate motions. (ECF Nos. 48-58, 61-69, 71, 73-76.) Within this profusion of documents,

23

Plaintiff filed two separate requests to stay this action. (ECF Nos. 68, 69.)

24

The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to

25

control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North

26

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of

27

establishing the need to stay the action. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708.

28
1

1

Here, Plaintiff has not carried his burden of establishing the need to stay this action.

2

Rather, Plaintiff seeks a stay pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b), which allows a

3

district court to stay the execution of a judgment or any proceedings to enforce a judgment. Fed.

4

R. Civ. P. 62(b). Plaintiff also appears to seek entry of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of

5

Civil Procedure 54. (ECF No. 69, p. 2.)

6

Plaintiff is not entitled to judgment at this stage of the proceedings. The Court has not

7

screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and no defendant has been served. As Plaintiff

8

is not entitled to entry of judgment, he also is not entitled to a stay of the execution of any such

9

judgment.

10

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for a stay are HEREBY DENIED without prejudice.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 5, 2015

14

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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