Ronald Young v. Sisodia et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying 40 MOTION to STAY all proceedings pending appellate review signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 7/5/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
RONALD YOUNG,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14

Case No. 1:15-cv-00640-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING
APPELLATE REVIEW
(ECF NO. 40)

C. SISODIA,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19

Ronald Young (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

20

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case is now proceeding on Plaintiff’s Second Amended

21

Complaint against defendant C. Sisodia. (ECF Nos. 19, 20, & 23). On June 30, 2017, Plaintiff

22

filed a notice of appeal of the denial of his motion for entry of default and motion for default

23

judgment, as well as the denial of his motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 40). As part of the

24

notice of appeal, Plaintiff requested that the Court stay all proceedings pending appellate review.

25

(Id.).

26

A district court “has the inherent authority to control its own docket and calendar.” Yong

27

v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). “[A]s an incident to its power to control its own

28

docket,” a district court has “broad discretion to stay proceedings.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S.
1

1

681, 706 (1997).

2

In order to appeal a non-final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, Plaintiff must show that

3

the order he is appealing from “must ‘conclusively determine the disputed question,’ ‘resolve an

4

important issue completely separate from the merits of the action,’ and ‘be effectively

5

unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.’” Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S.

6

424, 431 (1985) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978)); Lauro Lines

7

s.r.l. v. Chasser, 490 U.S. 495, 498 (1989).

8

Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. Plaintiff did not provide a reason why the case should

9

be stayed pending appeal, and the Court sees none. Additionally, it does not appear that Plaintiff

10
11
12

filed a legitimate interlocutory appeal.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to stay all
proceedings pending appellate review is DENIED.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 5, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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