Gaines v. Brown et al

Filing 39

ORDER denying 38 Motion to Stay signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/19/2018. (Filing Deadline: 8/21/2018). (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARY LEE GAINES,

12

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO STAY

v.

14

Case No. 1:16-cv-01666-AWI-BAM (PC)

BROWN, et al,

(ECF No. 38)
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Mary Lee Gaines (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on

19

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Mirelez and Hoehing for deliberate

20

indifference to medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

21

On March 9, 2018, the undersigned issued an order finding service of the first amended

22

complaint appropriate and forwarding service documents to Plaintiff for completion and return

23

within thirty days. (ECF No. 30.) The Court has granted Plaintiff two extensions of time to file

24

the appropriate service documents. (ECF Nos. 34, 37.)

25
26

I.

Motion for Stay
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to stay, filed July 16, 2018. (ECF No. 38.)

27

Plaintiff states that she filed the instant action while physically and mentally disabled due to the

28

statute of limitations imposed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Plaintiff states that
1

1

she suffers from a variety of health conditions and disabilities which have confined her to a

2

wheelchair and walker and required the use of an oxygen concentrator and C-PAP machine from

3

2010 to the present. Plaintiff also suffers from seizures and blackouts that cause mental problems

4

and mental illness. Plaintiff contends that she is unable to continue proceeding pro se in this

5

action due to her physical and mental illnesses at this time. Plaintiff argues that at the time the

6

complaint was filed, she had the assistance of other prisoners, but since that time she has been

7

confined to the SNF. Plaintiff states that she is only able to file motions for continuances in order

8

to attempt to research and learn the law and civil procedure to file the required court documents.

9

She has unsuccessfully sought the help of other inmates and an attorney. Plaintiff requests a stay

10

of these proceedings until she is physically and mentally recovered, or has been appointed an

11

attorney. (Id.)

12

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

13

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

14

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.”

15

Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066–67 (9th Cir. 2007).

16

If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it.

17

Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). The party seeking the stay bears the burden

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b). Plaintiff has not received a judgment in these proceedings, and

22

no defendant has been served. As such, Plaintiff is not entitled to a stay of the execution of any

23

judgment.

24

In addition, Plaintiff has not carried her burden of establishing the need to stay this action.

25

While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s difficulties litigating this case in light of her physical

26

and mental health issues, Plaintiff has not shown that her health issues prevent her from

27

proceeding with this case, nor from responding to the Court’s orders and seeking extensions of

28

time where appropriate. The allegations in Plaintiff’s motion support a further extension of time
2

1

to complete the necessary service documents, but do not warrant the stay sought here. Plaintiff

2

has not specified the length of the requested stay, except that it should last “until she is not

3

physically and mentally ill, or that an attorney is appointed to her case.” (ECF No. 38, p. 4.)

4

Given that Plaintiff alleges her health conditions began in 2010 and continue to the present day,

5

the Court declines to order what amounts to an indefinite stay of this action.

6

The Court further notes that the only pending deadline in this action is the completion and

7

return of the appropriate service documents, as discussed in the Court’s March 9, 2018 order.

8

(ECF No. 30.) This task does not require any legal research to complete, and Plaintiff has not

9

specified exactly what additional assistance or accommodation she requires in order to complete

10

these documents and return them to the Court. Therefore, the Court finds that a discrete

11

extension of time, rather than an indefinite stay, will better serve the orderly course of justice.

12
13

II.

Appointment of Counsel
To the extent Plaintiff also moves for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff is informed that

14

she does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113

15

F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952, 954 n.1 (9th Cir.

16

1998), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

17

1915(e)(1). Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989).

18

However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of

19

counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

20

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek

21

volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether

22

“exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on

23

the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

24

complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

25

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel, but does not

26

find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed

27

in the law and that she has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle her to relief,

28

her case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases filed by prisoners proceeding
3

1

pro se and suffering from various health conditions almost daily. These prisoners also must

2

conduct legal research and prosecute claims without the assistance of counsel.

3

Furthermore, at this stage in the proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that

4

Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. Although the Court has found that Plaintiff has stated

5

cognizable claims against Defendants Mirelez and Hoehing, the Court has not determined that

6

those claims have a likelihood of ultimately being successful.

7

Finally, based on a review of the limited record in this case, the Court does not find that

8

Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate her claims. Plaintiff has set forth cognizable claims that are

9

proceeding in this action, and has demonstrated the ability to request extensions of time for

10
11
12
13
14

upcoming deadlines, supported by good cause.
III.

Conclusion and Order
Having considered Plaintiff’s moving papers, Plaintiff’s motion for stay, (ECF No. 38), is

HEREBY DENIED.
Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall submit

15

completed service documents for Defendants Mirelez and Hoehing, as discussed in the Court’s

16

March 9, 2018 order. Further extensions of time will not be granted without a showing of good

17

cause, and Plaintiff should specifically identify the reasons for her failure to timely file completed

18

service documents or to comply with the Court’s order. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this

19

order will result in dismissal of this action for failure to obey court orders and failure to

20

prosecute.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

July 19, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
4