Bruce v. Chaiken et al
Filing
24
ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/21/2015 DIRECTING the Clerk to appoint a district judge to this action; and the Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings and recommendations on Deputy Attorney G eneral Gabriel Ulrich. IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's 14 motion requesting that CDCR calculate his filing fees sequentially be stayed pending the resolution of this issue by the US Supreme Court. Assigned and referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
VINCENT BRUCE,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-0960 KJN P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
SHAMA CHAIKEN, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant
18
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 27, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court order the
19
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to collect his filing fees
20
sequentially. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff alleges that this method for calculating filing fees,
21
compared to the proposed alternative method, imposes a hardship on his ability to correspond
22
with others and to purchase items at the canteen, including personal hygiene items. (Id. at 3-4.)
23
On September 1, 2015, the undersigned directed the CDCR Director to file a response to this
24
motion. (ECF No. 16.)
25
On October 1, 2015, CDCR Director filed a response to plaintiff’s pending motion. (ECF
26
No. 22.) CDCR Director correctly states that there is a significant split in the circuits of the
27
United States Courts of Appeal on the issue of the calculation of multiple filing fee payments
28
from prisoners. CDCR Director states that the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari
1
1
to address this subject. See Pinson v. Samuels, 761 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“The courts of
2
appeals are divided concerning the manner in which the PLRA calls for collection of installment
3
payments from prisoners who simultaneously owe filing fees in multiple cases”), certiorari
4
granted by Bruce v. Samuels, 135 S. Ct. 2833 (June 15, 2015). The CDCR Director requests that
5
this court stay disposition of plaintiff’s pending motion pending adjudication of the issue by the
6
United States Supreme Court.
7
For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion regarding
8
the calculation of his filing fees be stayed pending adjudication of the issue by the United States
9
Supreme Court.
10
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to
11
control disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
12
counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “The exertion of
13
this power calls for the exercise of sound discretion.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268
14
(9th Cir. 1962).
15
The court considers a number of factors in deciding whether to grant a stay. Id. (citing
16
Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55). First, a court may consider the “possible damage which may result
17
from granting a stay.” Id. The second factor to consider is the hardship or inequity which a party
18
may suffer in being required to go forward. CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268. The third factor the court
19
may consider is “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or
20
complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a
21
stay.” CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268.
22
With respect to the first factor, plaintiff will continue to suffer the alleged injuries if this
23
action is stayed. With respect to the second factor, the undersigned finds that neither plaintiff nor
24
the CDCR Director would suffer any significant hardship if they were required to go forward with
25
respect to disposition of the issue raised by plaintiff in the pending motion. The third factor,
26
however, clearly weighs in favor of staying this case. Because the United States Supreme Court
27
is considering the same issue raised by plaintiff in the pending motion, the orderly course of
28
justice warrants a stay.
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to appoint a district judge to this action;
3
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of these findings and
4
recommendations on Deputy Attorney General Gabriel Ullrich, specially appearing on behalf of
5
the CDCR Director; and
6
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion requesting that CDCR
7
calculate his filing fees sequentially (ECF No. 14) be stayed pending the resolution of this issue
8
by the United States Supreme Court.
9
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
10
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
11
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
12
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
13
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
14
objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
15
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
16
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
17
Dated: October 21, 2015
18
19
20
Bru960.sta
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?