Wahl v. Sutton
Filing
49
ORDER DENYING 48 Motion to Stay of Proceedings as Moot, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/15/19. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PETER GERARD WAHL,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
Case No. 1:16-cv-01576-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY OF
PROCEEDINGS AS MOOT
v.
(ECF No. 43)
SUTTON,
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff Peter Gerard Wahl (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner appearing pro se and in
18
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on
19
Plaintiff’s third amended complaint against Defendant Sutton for deliberate indifference resulting
20
from excessive custody, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
21
On November 14, 2018, Defendant Sutton filed a motion to dismiss in response to the
22
third amended complaint in lieu of filing an answer. (ECF No. 41.) Following re-service of the
23
motion to dismiss on Plaintiff at Plaintiff’s correct address of record, (ECF Nos. 43, 44), Plaintiff
24
filed his opposition on January 11, 2019, (ECF No. 45). Defendant filed a reply on January 16,
25
2019. (ECF No. 46.)
26
On May 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay the proceedings in this action throughout
27
the month of June 2019. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff stated that he was scheduled to undergo cataract
28
eye surgeries of both eyes on June 7 and June 27, 2019. Alternatively, Plaintiff requested
1
1
assistance of counsel if no stay was granted. (Id.) Defendant did not file an opposition, and the
2
deadline to do so has expired.
3
As noted above, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of filing an answer to the third
4
amended complaint. Therefore, discovery has not been opened. Furthermore, Plaintiff timely
5
filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss and Defendant filed a reply, and the motion is fully
6
briefed. No other deadlines are currently pending. Finally, the month of June has passed, and
7
therefore a stay of this action at this time would be moot, as would appointment of counsel for the
8
purpose of assisting Plaintiff during the month of June.
9
10
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for stay, (ECF No. 48), is DENIED as moot. The Court
will issue findings and recommendations regarding Defendant’s motion to dismiss in due course.
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
July 15, 2019
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?