(PC) Smith v. Parriot et al

Filing 63

ORDER DENYING 62 Motion to Stay signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/13/2022. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR STAY
(ECF No. 62.)

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:19-cv-00286-NONE-GSA-PC

vs.
PARRIOT, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

I.

BACKGROUND

20

Lawrence Christopher Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

21

forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now

22

proceeds with the First Amended Complaint filed on September 10, 2020, against defendants

23

Cantu, W. Gutierrez, and Mattingly (“Defendants”) for use of excessive force in violation of the

24

Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 22.)

25

On September 15, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on

26

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust remedies and pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994.)

27

(ECF No. 47.) On February 10, 2022, the Magistrate Judge entered findings and

28

recommendations, recommending that the motion for summary judgment be granted. (ECF No.
1

1

57.) Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations were due on July 4, 2022, by

2

this Court's order, but Plaintiff has not yet filed objections. (ECF No. 61.)

3

On June 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay the resolution of Defendants’ pending

4

motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 62.) Defendants have not filed an opposition to

5

Plaintiff’s motion to stay, and the time in which to do so has expired. Therefore, Plaintiff’s

6

motion for stay is now before the court. Local Rule 230(l).

7

II.

MOTION FOR STAY

8

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

9

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

10

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of

11

establishing the need to stay the action. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708. In considering an application

12

for a stay, the Court considers: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he

13

is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a

14

stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the

15

proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. Coleman v. Brown, 960 F.Supp.2d 1057

16

(E.D.Cal. 2013) (citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 173 L.Ed.2d 550

17

(2009); Humane Soc. of U.S. v. Gutierrez, 558 F.3d 896, 896 (9th Cir. 2009).

18

Discussion

19

Plaintiff seeks a stay of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment to allow him time to

20

amend his complaint in a related action, Smith v. Secretary, 2:21-cv-00519-WSB-DB, and to

21

consolidate all of his actions pending before the Court. Based upon the factors referenced above

22

the Court shall deny Plaintiff’s motion for a stay.

23

First, Plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits of this case, considering that the

24

Magistrate Judge has entered findings and recommendations to dismiss the case for failure to

25

state a claim. Second, Plaintiff has not made a showing that he will be irreparably injured absent

26

a stay. The imposition of a stay in this action does not equate to a resolution of the motion for

27

summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. However, delay of resolution of the motion for summary

28

judgment would undoubtedly be prejudicial to Defendants. Finally, the public interest lies in
2

1

expeditious resolution of litigation, favoring the denial of Plaintiff’s motion for stay. Yourish v.

2

California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s

3

motion for stay shall be denied.

4

III.

5
6

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for stay, filed on June

29, 2022, is denied.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 13, 2022

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3