Tran v. Turner et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 10/31/17 RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's motion for stay 27 be denied. re 27 MOTION to put case on hold filed by Binh C. Tran. referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BINH C. TRAN,
No. 2:15-cv-0200 MCE DB P
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to stay this action pending his
transfer to another institution.
The United States Supreme Court has clearly indicated that “the power to stay
proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the
causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.
How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing
interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55
(1936). In this regard, “the proponent of the stay bears the burden of establishing its need.”
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997).
Plaintiff has failed to show why a stay of these proceedings is necessary. Though plaintiff
expresses concern about missing court orders and motions that may result in the dismissal of this
action, the record reveals no such prejudice. No dispositive motions have yet been filed in this
case, and the single court order that was returned as undeliverable was re-served on plaintiff
following receipt of his notice of change of address.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for stay (ECF
No. 27) be denied.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
objections shall be filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. The parties
are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of the
right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).
Dated: October 31, 2017
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?