Mendez v. United States of America et al
Filing
71
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 66 Motion to Stay signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 03/03/2020. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
FELIPE MENDEZ, JR.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
1:17-cv-00555-NONE-JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STAY
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
15
(Doc. 66)
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff has filed a motion to stay this action until he is released from the Special Housing
18
19
Unit or for an order to allow plaintiff access to his legal documents. (Doc. 66.) He contends that
20
he has been unable to access these documents since he was placed in the SHU on November 23,
21
2019.
22
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to
23
control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
24
counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); accord Stone v.
25
I.N.S., 514 U.S. 386, 411 (1995) (“[W]e have long recognized that courts have inherent power to
26
stay proceedings and ‘to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time
27
and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’ ” (Breyer, J., dissenting) (quoting Landis, 299
28
U.S. at 254)). A court’s decision to grant a stay is discretionary, “dependent upon the
1
1
circumstances of the particular case.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 432 (2009). Deciding
2
whether to grant a stay pending the outcome of other proceedings “calls for the exercise of
3
judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299
4
U.S. at 254–55. The movant bears the burden of showing the circumstances justify a stay. Id. at
5
433-34; see Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). The party seeking such a stay must
6
“make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a
7
fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to some one [sic] else.” Id. at
8
255.
9
In considering whether to grant a stay, this court must weigh several factors, including
10
“[1] the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or
11
inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and [3] the orderly course of
12
justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law
13
which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.
14
1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55).
15
On review, the Court finds no basis to grant plaintiff’s motion. There is presently no
16
action required by any party during consideration of defendants’ May 10, 2019, motion for
17
summary judgment, which plaintiff opposed on October 15, 2019, and which is now fully briefed.
18
In addition, plaintiff’s motion does not justify his alleged need for access to his legal documents
19
while he awaits resolution of the summary judgment motion. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
20
plaintiff’s motion to stay.
21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
March 3, 2020
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?