Hayes v. Dajani et al,

Filing 58

ORDER Denying 57 Plaintiff's Request for Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/23/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

GREG HAYES,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C-11-1702 EMC

Plaintiff,
v.
MUSA DAJANI, et al.,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR HEARING ON
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO AMEND

Defendants.
(Docket No. 57)

13
___________________________________/
14
15
16

The Court has stayed this case until at least March 9, 2012, when the next case management

17

conference is to take place. The stay is based in large part on Mr. Hayes being confined at the Napa

18

State Hospital. See Docket No. 53 (order). The same day that the Court issued the stay, Mr. Hayes

19

filed a motion asking for leave to amend his complaint. See Docket No. 54 (motion). The Court

20

subsequently clarified through a Clerk’s Notice that Mr. Hayes’s motion would be deferred in light

21

of the stay. Mr. Hayes now asks the Court to proceed with his motion in spite of the stay.

22

The Court hereby DENIES Mr. Hayes’s request. The Court has afforded Mr. Hayes the

23

benefit of a stay because of his circumstances. It is not equitable to permit Mr. Hayes to litigate this

24

case in spite of the stay but deny Defendants the opportunity to do the same. Moreover, Mr. Hayes

25

has not established why it is necessary to proceed with his motion at this time. There is no

26

indication that he would be unduly or irreparably prejudiced by having his motion deferred for

27

several months.

28

1

Finally, to the extent Mr. Hayes is asking the Court or the Clerk of the Court for a copy of

2

his own motion for leave to amend, this request is also DENIED without prejudice. The Court has

3

previously informed Mr. Hayes that he provide payment for the cost of copying before any copies

4

can be provided to him. See Docket No. 49 (Order at 2). There is no “case account” that can be

5

“charged.”

6

This order disposes of Docket No. 57.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: January 23, 2012

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2