Mendez v. United States of America et al
ORDER DENYING 12 Motion to Stay as MOOT signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/14/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FELIPE MENDEZ, JR.,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY AS
(ECF No. 12)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights
action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and the
Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680 (“FTCA”).
On July 11, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and
found it stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Ghotra, Awad,
Rivera, Mendoza, Lake, Lozano, Marlow, Cisneros, Amos, and Gramm. (ECF No. 11.)
Plaintiff was directed to file either a second amended complaint or a notice of willingness
to proceed on his cognizable claims only. After first seeking an extension of time in
which to file his second amended complaint, Plaintiff filed a notice of willingness to
proceed on his cognizable claims only. (ECF No. 16.) Then on September 25, 2017,
Plaintiff filed a request to withdraw his notice of willingness to proceed (ECF No. 17) and
requested a sixty day extension of time to file a second amended complaint (ECF No.
As Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was not been sent out for service, his
request to withdraw his notice of willingness to proceed was granted. (ECF No. 19.)
Plaintiff also was granted sixty days to file his second amended complaint. (Id.)
On July 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed motion to stay this action and hold it in abeyance
while pending his transfer to a new correctional institution because the transfer would
interfere with his ability to proceed. (ECF No. 12.)
Plaintiff has been actively involved in this case since the filing of his motion to
stay, including filing the September 25, 2017 motion. (ECF No. 18.) Because Plaintiff is
participating in this action and has been granted a 60 day extension of time to file a
second amended complaint (ECF No. 19), it appears he is no longer in need of the
requested stay. Accordingly, his motion to stay is found to be moot.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to stay (ECF No.
12) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 14, 2017
Michael J. Seng
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?