Chavarria et al v. Brown et al

Filing 35

ORDER DENYING MOTION BY STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION AND REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/19/2015. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

FRESNO DIVISION

11
12

RUBEN CHAVARRIA, et al.,

13
14

v.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00223-LJO-SAB
Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION BY
STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION AND
REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A
RESPONSIVE PLEADING

15
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al.,

(ECF No. 34)

16
Defendants.
17
18

On September 22, 2015, an order issued lifting the stay of this action and requiring

19

Defendants to file a pleading responsive to the complaint within twenty days. (ECF No. 30.)

20

Thereafter, the parties filed a stipulation to extend time for Defendants to file an answer to the

21

complaint which was granted. (ECF Nos. 32, 33.) On October 2, 2015, the parties filed a motion

22

by stipulation to stay the proceedings in this action until the pleadings in the related cases of

23

Jackson, et al. v. Brown, et al., No. 1:13-cv-01055-LJO-SAB, and Smith, et al. v.

24

Schwarzenegger, et al., No. 1:14-cv-0060-LJO-SAB, are finalized.

25

On October 16, 2015 the Court conducted a status conference in several of these related

26

cases. During the October 16, 2015 conference, the parties discussed the necessity for a stay and

27

the Court’s concern that these actions not stagnant unnecessarily on the Court’s docket.

28
1

1

Counsel for Plaintiffs are attempting to resolve how this action will proceed based on the

2

decisions in Jackson and Smith finding that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the

3

Eighth Amendment claims. The parties are discussing how the qualified immunity decision will

4

impact the additional claims that are raised in these actions. Counsel for the parties agreed at the

5

October 16, 2015 hearing that the deadline to file a responsive document in these related cases

6

shall be extended to December 11, 2015 to allow the parties an opportunity to consider their

7

options due to the qualified immunity findings. Therefore, the stipulation to stay the proceedings

8

at this time is denied without prejudice. The Court finds no need for a status conference to be set

9

at this time.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

The motion by stipulation to stay this action is DENIED without prejudice; and

12

2.

Defendants shall file a pleading responsive to the first amended complaint on or

13

before December 11, 2015.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 19, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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