Van den Heuvel v. Expedia Travel et al

Filing 50

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/12/2017 DENYING 49 Motion to Stay. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-00567-JAM-AC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

EXPEDIA TRAVEL, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff has filed a notification that was docketed as a Motion to Stay. ECF No. 49.

18

Plaintiff is proceeding in pro se, and the matter was accordingly referred to the magistrate judge

19

by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21).

20
21

I.

MOTION AND ANALYSIS

Plaintiff apparently seeks to “put a hold” on this case, on the grounds that he is presently

22

incarcerated. ECF No. 49 at 2. Plaintiff presents no argument for a stay except for stating the

23

fact that he is in jail. Id. The court DENIES plaintiff’s motion.

24

A district court has the ability to stay proceedings, or stop action in a case, as part of its

25

inherent power to “control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and

26

effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).

27

To decide if a stay is appropriate, courts weigh competing interests, including: (1) the possible

28

damage which may result from the granting of a stay; (2) the hardship or inequity which a party
1

1

may suffer in being required to go forward; and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in

2

terms of simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be

3

expected to result from a stay. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.1962) (citing

4

Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55). Simply because a person is incarcerated does not mean that he is

5

“stripped of free access to the courts and the use of legal process to remedy civil wrongs.”

6

Wimberly v. Rogers, 557 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir.1997). An assertion by a plaintiff that it will be

7

difficult to litigate because he is incarcerated is not enough to justify a stay of proceedings.

8

Cramer v. Target Corp., No. 1:08-CV-01693-OWW, 2011 WL 109106, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12,

9

2011).

10

Here, plaintiff presented no argument to justify a stay of proceedings except for the fact

11

that he is incarcerated. The court finds that the fact of incarceration does not, by itself, warrant a

12

stay. Plaintiff’s motion to stay is denied.

13
14

II.

PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY

The court gets to decide whether or not to stop action in a case. The court is denying your

15

request to put a hold on this case, because being in jail does not prevent you from litigating. If

16

being in jail makes it difficult for you to meet a particular deadline, you may file a request for

17

extension of time.

18

III. CONCLUSION

19

Plaintiff’s motion to stay, ECF No. 49, is DENIED.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

DATED: June 12, 2017

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2