Kandi v. Management and Training Corporation et al
ORDER DENYING 31 Motion for Stay of Proceedings signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/1/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EMIEL A. KANDI,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY OF
(ECF No. 31)
MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING
CORPORATION, et al.,
Plaintiff Emiel A. Kandi (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
Case No. 1:16-cv-00794-AWI-BAM (PC)
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1
On November 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay all proceedings in this matter due
to an impending institutional transfer to an unknown location. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff does not
specify when this transfer will take place, but requests that the Court stay any further proceedings
until notified by Plaintiff of his new address. Plaintiff further requests that the Clerk of the Court
hold all mailing to him until notified of Plaintiff’s new address, and states that all of his legal files
and materials have been packed for transport and are unavailable. (Id.)
The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint has not yet been screened, but the Court takes judicial
notice that Plaintiff has filed his complaint in part under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Generally, suits
against federal officers for the violation of constitutional rights should be filed under Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. N. Amer.
Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of establishing the
need to stay the action. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708.
Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing the need to stay this action. Plaintiff
appears to be concerned about missing mail from the Court related to this case while he is in
transit, but he has not provided any indication of the extent of the requested stay, including his
anticipated dates of transport. This action is currently in the screening stage, and the Court will
screen Plaintiff’s second amended complaint in due course. Nevertheless, Plaintiff should
promptly inform the Court of his new address, as required by the Local Rules, so that he does not
miss any communications pertaining to this matter. Plaintiff is further informed that he has
nothing due at this time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for stay of proceedings
(ECF No. 31), is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 1, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?