(PC) Anthony Joseph Eidem v. Kathleen Allison et al

Filing 18

ORDER GRANTING 17 Plaintiff's Motion for Thirty-Day Stay of All Proceedings, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 02/06/2024. Thirty-Day Deadline. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ANTHONY J. EIDEM, 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 ALLISON, et al., 13 Case No. 1:23-cv-01198-JLT-BAM (PC) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 30-DAY STAY OF ALL PROCEEDINGS (ECF No. 17) Defendants. THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff Anthony J. Eidem (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action pro se on June 26, 2023. (ECF No. 1.) On October 23, 2023, 18 the Court screened the first amended complaint and issued findings and recommendations that 19 this action be dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18, and 20 20 and for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 13.) 21 Plaintiff filed objections on November 3, 2023, (ECF No. 14), and the findings and 22 recommendations are now pending before the assigned District Judge. 23 On February 5, 2024, Attorney Dennis Shawn Burkley was substituted as attorney of 24 record in place of Plaintiff as a pro se litigant. (ECF Nos. 15, 16.) The same date, Plaintiff, 25 through counsel, filed a request for a 30-day stay of proceedings. (ECF No. 17.) 26 In the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that he was first contacted by Plaintiff in the 27 latter part of January and was retained on February 5, 2024. (ECF No. 17-1.) After speaking to 28 Plaintiff and reviewing the pleadings and orders in this matter, counsel believes that Plaintiff does 1 1 possess a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 but was unable to fashion it into a cognizable 2 claim due to his lack of legal training or skill. Counsel now requests thirty days to investigate and 3 present these claims in a manner that is compliant with federal pleading standards and the 4 Prisoner Litigation Reform Act. (Id.) 5 The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 6 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North 7 American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). A stay is discretionary and the “party requesting a stay 8 bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken v. 9 Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433–34 (2009). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” 10 Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066–67 (9th Cir. 2007). 11 If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it. 12 Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court should “balance the length of any 13 stay against the strength of the justification given for it.” Id. 14 The Court finds that a stay of proceedings is appropriate under the circumstances 15 presented. The requested stay is brief and will allow Plaintiff’s new counsel time to investigate 16 Plaintiff’s claims. 17 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 18 1. Plaintiff’s motion for 30-day stay of all proceedings, (ECF No. 17), is GRANTED; 19 2. The instant action is STAYED for thirty (30) days; and 20 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL FILE 21 further objections or otherwise respond to the October 23, 2023 findings and 22 recommendations. 23 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara February 6, 2024 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?