Gradford v. Lignoski, et al.
Filing
8
ORDER DENYING 7 Plaintiff's Motion to Stay the Action for Six Months signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/7/2017. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WILLIAM J. GRADFORD,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00792-JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO STAY THEACTION FOR SIX MONTHS
v.
(Doc. 7)
LIGNOSKI, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
On June 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a six month “leave of absence” from
18
this litigation. Plaintiff states that there is an investigation into a deputy’s wrongful actions
19
against him and he requires time to obtain counsel to prove the “complete truthfulness” of his
20
allegations. This is construed as a motion to stay this action.
21
A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings. This power to stay is
22
“incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its
23
docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North
24
American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Gold v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 723 F.2d
25
1068, 1077 (3d Cir.1983) (holding that the power to stay proceedings comes from the power of
26
every court to manage the cases on its docket and to ensure a fair and efficient adjudication of the
27
matter at hand). This is best accomplished by the “exercise of judgment, which must weigh
28
1
1
competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55. In determining
2
whether a stay is warranted, courts consider the potential prejudice to the non-moving party; the
3
hardship or inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and the judicial resources that
4
would be saved by simplifying the case or avoiding duplicative litigation if the case before the
5
court is stayed. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.1962). The Ninth Circuit “has
6
sustained or authorized in principle Landis stays on several occasions,” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp.,
7
398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir.2005), none of which apply here.
8
It is understandable that Plaintiff may prefer to prosecute this action with the assistance of
9
counsel. However, he has not shown any basis to find that he is unable to litigate his case at this
10
time. Plaintiff has not shown that any further investigation is required, or that any delay in this
11
ligation is warranted here. Thus, the Court declines to stay these proceedings.
12
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a six month stay (Doc. 6), is DENIED.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated:
July 7, 2017
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?