Williams v. State of California et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 16 Motion to Stay signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/05/11. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

KIRK DOUGLAS WILLIAMS,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. CIV S-10-2893 KJM CKD P

vs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42

17

U.S.C. § 1983. On August 11, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to stay this action until the

18

completion of his administrative appeals concerning the allegations in this action. However,

19

there is no mechanism for “staying” a section 1983 action, as compared to the “stay and abeyance

20

option” available in habeas corpus actions. See Kilgore v. Mandeville, 2011 WL 4048406 at *2

21

(E.D. Cal. 2011) (same), citing Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005).

22

////

23

////

24

////

25

////

26

////
1

1
2
3

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s August 11, 2011 motion to
stay (Dkt. No. 16) is denied.
Dated: October 5, 2011

4

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8

2 / will2893.ord2

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2