Brown v. Iosacco et al

Filing 34

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY STAY; GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; DENYING PLAINTIFFS PENDING MOTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE re 29 , 30 , 32 . (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WILLIAM E. BROWN,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
R. AMIS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00603-HSG (PR)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY STAY; GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME; DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 29, 30, 32

12
13
14

On February 4, 2016, plaintiff William E. Brown, a state prisoner presently incarcerated at

15

Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding

16

incidents that took place at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), where he was previously

17

incarcerated. On December 29, 2016, the Court screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and

18

found that, liberally construed, it stated cognizable religious practice claims. The action was

19

ordered served on three defendants at PBSP, who have now appeared through counsel.

20

On January 19, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary stay. In the motion, plaintiff

21

represents that he is undergoing criminal proceedings in Del Norte County Superior Court and that

22

his counsel in those proceedings has initiated an inquiry into plaintiff’s competency to stand trial

23

in light of plaintiff’s psychiatric condition. Plaintiff seeks a stay of this action while he undergoes

24

competency proceedings in his criminal case. No opposition having been filed thereto, and good

25

cause appearing, plaintiff’s motion for a temporary stay is GRANTED.

26

The instant action is hereby STAYED. Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file

27

a dispositive motion is GRANTED. The briefing schedule set forth in the Court’s December 29,

28

2016 order is VACATED. If plaintiff intends to proceed with his claims, he shall file, within

1

thirty (30) days of the date the competency proceedings have concluded, a motion asking the

2

Court to lift the stay. The Court will then issue a new briefing schedule for dispositive motions.

3

Plaintiff’s remaining motions are DENIED without prejudice to re-filing after the stay is

4
5
6

lifted.
The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions and ADMINISTRATIVELY
CLOSE the case pending the stay. This has no legal effect; it is purely a statistical procedure.

7

This order terminates Docket Nos. 29, 30, and 32.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: 3/31/2017

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2