Ammons v. Bakewell, et al

Filing 52

ORDER denying 49 Motion to Stay signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/10/11. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ANTHONY AMMONS,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,
vs.
C. BAKEWELL, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

18

ORDER
/

16
17

No. CIV S-10-0544 KJM DAD P

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
On June 9, 2011, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations,

19

recommending that the assigned district judge grant defendant Bakewell’s motion for summary

20

judgment. The undersigned also denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of its order striking

21

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as having been untimely filed. Since then, plaintiff has

22

filed two requests for extensions of time to file objections to the pending findings and

23

recommendations , which the undersigned has granted. Plaintiff has also filed an interlocutory

24

appeal of the court’s order striking his motion for summary judgment as untimely. Now pending

25

before the court is plaintiff’s motion to stay this action until the Ninth Circuit resolves his

26

interlocutory appeal. Defendant Bakewell has opposed the motion.
1

1

A district court has the inherent authority to control its own docket and calendar.

2

Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). In general, the court has discretion to stay

3

proceedings. Id. In this case, plaintiff has not offered any compelling reason to stay this action.

4

See Hansen v. Schubert, 459 F. Supp. 2d 973, 999 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (“The general rule is that an

5

appellate court should not review a district court ruling until after entry of a final judgment.”).

6

As defense counsel observes, if the assigned district judge adopts the findings and

7

recommendations in full, plaintiff may appeal the district court’s order as well as any other

8

appealable issues in this case at that time.

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a stay (Doc.

10

No. 49) is denied.

11

DATED: August 10, 2011.

12
13
14

DAD:9
ammo0544.styd

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2