Van den Heuvel v. Expedia Travel et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/12/2017 DENYING 49 Motion to Stay. (Zignago, K.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL,
EXPEDIA TRAVEL, et al.,
Plaintiff has filed a notification that was docketed as a Motion to Stay. ECF No. 49.
Plaintiff is proceeding in pro se, and the matter was accordingly referred to the magistrate judge
by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21).
MOTION AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiff apparently seeks to “put a hold” on this case, on the grounds that he is presently
incarcerated. ECF No. 49 at 2. Plaintiff presents no argument for a stay except for stating the
fact that he is in jail. Id. The court DENIES plaintiff’s motion.
A district court has the ability to stay proceedings, or stop action in a case, as part of its
inherent power to “control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and
effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).
To decide if a stay is appropriate, courts weigh competing interests, including: (1) the possible
damage which may result from the granting of a stay; (2) the hardship or inequity which a party
may suffer in being required to go forward; and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in
terms of simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be
expected to result from a stay. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.1962) (citing
Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55). Simply because a person is incarcerated does not mean that he is
“stripped of free access to the courts and the use of legal process to remedy civil wrongs.”
Wimberly v. Rogers, 557 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir.1997). An assertion by a plaintiff that it will be
difficult to litigate because he is incarcerated is not enough to justify a stay of proceedings.
Cramer v. Target Corp., No. 1:08-CV-01693-OWW, 2011 WL 109106, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12,
Here, plaintiff presented no argument to justify a stay of proceedings except for the fact
that he is incarcerated. The court finds that the fact of incarceration does not, by itself, warrant a
stay. Plaintiff’s motion to stay is denied.
PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY
The court gets to decide whether or not to stop action in a case. The court is denying your
request to put a hold on this case, because being in jail does not prevent you from litigating. If
being in jail makes it difficult for you to meet a particular deadline, you may file a request for
extension of time.
Plaintiff’s motion to stay, ECF No. 49, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 12, 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?