Bumpus v. Nangalama, et al

Filing 50

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/14/15 ordering that plaintiff's motion for a stay of proceedings 46 is denied as moot. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PATRICK BUMPUS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:12-cv-1102 GEB DAD P

v.

ORDER

A. NANGALAMA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Patrick Bumpus is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

18

civil rights action filed pursuant to § 1983. In his complaint, plaintiff contends that, while he was

19

incarcerated at California State Prison-Sacramento, defendants Nangalama, Dillan, Sahota, Cox,

20

Teachow, and Deem were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, in violation of the

21

Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

22

On February 23, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to stay the proceedings herein. Plaintiff’s

23

moving papers provide that he was admitted to the Mule Creek State Prison mental health crisis

24

ward on January 22, 2015, and that he anticipated imminent transfer to a facility operated by the

25

California Department of State Hospitals. Plaintiff therefore requested that this case be stayed

26

either for a period of six months or until his hospital discharge. (ECF No. 46 at 1-2.)
Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 47.)

27
28

/////
1

1

On March 23, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice a change of address with the court indicating

2

that he had been transferred to California Medical Facility in Vacaville, California. (ECF

3

No. 48.) On August 6, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address with the court indicating

4

that he had been transferred to High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California. (ECF No. 49.)

5

The latter notice provides: “I would like to resume my case where I left off. Please let me know

6

what my next step is, or will be.” (Id. at 1.)

7

Because it appears that plaintiff has now been discharged from a hospital setting to state

8

prison, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion for stay as moot. An order which addresses

9

defendants’ motion to compel discovery responses (ECF No. 42) and plaintiff’s motion for

10
11

appointment of counsel will be forthcoming.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s February 23, 2015 motion for a

12

stay of the proceedings (ECF No. 46) is denied as moot.

13

Dated: August 14, 2015

14
15
16

DAD:10
bump1102.stay.deny

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2