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)

Download PDF
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?