(PC) Crane v. Lopez et al

Filing 59

ORDER DENYING 57 Plaintiff's Motion for Stay of Case; ORDER GRANTING IN PART 58 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time, signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on February 7, 2024. Plaintiff shall deliver to correctional officials for mailing his response to the Court's November 20, 2023 Screening Order (Doc. No. 52 ) no later than March 8, 2024. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD J. CRANE,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

G. LOPEZ, et al.,

15

Case No. 1:22-cv-00922-NODJ-HBK (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR STAY OF CASE
(Doc. No. 57)

Defendants.

16

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(Doc. No. 58)

17
18

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Case, filed on January 16, 2024.

19

(Doc. No. 57, “Motion for Stay”). In the Motion, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

20

Procedure No. 62, Plaintiff “seeks a stay of the Court’s screening order” in this case pending a

21

ruling by the district judge on his October 27, 2023 Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 50) of

22

the Court’s September 20, 2023 Order (Doc. No. 44) striking and denying several pleadings. (Id.

23

at 1). Plaintiff contends the Court did not have authority to screen his Second Amended

24

Complaint. (Id.). On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time seeking 30

25

days to respond to the Court’s November 20, 2023 Screening Order (Doc. No. 52) after the

26

district judge rules on his Motion for Reconsideration and the Motion for Stay. (Doc. No. 58 at 2,

27

“Motion for EOT”). For reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the Motion for Stay and

28

grant in part the Motion for Extension of Time.

1

MOTION FOR STAY OF CASE

2

This court enjoys “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to

3

control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Such discretion may be

4

exercised even if the issues before the court are not controlling. Leyva v. Certified Grocers of

5

Cal., Ltd., 593 F. 2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979). Here, Plaintiff seeks a stay of the case under

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure No. 62, which provides that, except in limited circumstances,

7

“execution on a judgment and proceedings to enforce it are stayed for 30 days after its entry,

8

unless the court orders otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a); see also Marine Club Manager, Inc. v.

9

RB Com. Mortg., LLC, 2023 WL 8103154, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 21, 2023). This case remains at

10

the screening stage however, and no judgment has been entered, thus Rule 62 has no applicability

11

to this case.

12

Nor has Plaintiff established good cause for a stay. To the extent Plaintiff contends the

13

Court lacks authority to screen his Second Amended Complaint, he fails here to cite any authority

14

in support. The Court is aware of no reason it should not exercise its duty under the Prison

15

Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) to screen all prisoner civil rights complaints filed in or removed

16

to federal court that seek relief against a governmental entity, its officers, or its employees before

17

directing service upon any defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see Wilk v. Neven, 2016 WL 259694,

18

at *1 (D. Nev. Jan. 21, 2016) (federal district court required to screen prisoner plaintiff’s

19

complaint upon removal from state court); see also Doyle v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab.,

20

2013 WL 1149767, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2013) (same). This requires the court to identify

21

any cognizable claims and dismiss the complaint, or any portion, if is frivolous or malicious, if it

22

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a

23

defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

24

To the extent Plaintiff raises this argument in his Motion for Reconsideration, the District

25

Judge will address it and rule on the Motion in due course. In the meantime, Plaintiff’s Motion

26

for Stay is denied.

27
28

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
The Court may grant an extension of time “with or without motion or notice if the court
2

1

acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

2

6(b)(1)(A). In light of Plaintiff’s request being timely filed, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s

3

Motion for EOT in part, to the extent that Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this Order

4

to file his response to the Court’s November 20, 2023 Screening Order (Doc. No. 52). Thus,

5

Plaintiff must deliver his response to the Screening Order to correctional officials no later than

6

March 8, 2024.

7

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

8

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of the Case (Doc. No. 57) is DENIED.

9

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 58) is GRANTED IN PART as

10

set forth above.

11

3. Plaintiff shall deliver to correctional officials for mailing his response to the Court’s

12

November 20, 2023 Screening Order (Doc. No. 52) no later than March 8, 2024.

13
14

Dated:

February 7, 2024
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3