Irving v. Culton et al

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to stay this action [Doc. 27] and motion "requesting stay be enforced and allowing plaintiff to respond to defendants' motions after stay is lifted" [Doc. 43] are DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frederick R. Buckles on 7/12/2012. (KSM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM E. IRVING,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN CULTON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12CV183 FRB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to stay this action and his
motion “requesting stay be enforced and allowing plaintiff to respond to defendants’
motions after stay is lifted.” Both motions will be denied.
Plaintiff requests that the Court stay this action because he is in administrative
segregation and because he is busy pursuing other civil cases. Defendants Culton,
Steele, Cofer, Collins, and Wallace do not object to the stay because the Washington
County Prosecutor’s Office is reviewing the evidence to determine if criminal charges
should be filed against plaintiff for allegedly assaulting defendant Culton.
The Court issues stays in very limited circumstances. See Wallace v. Kato, 127
S. Ct. 1091 (2007) (court should issue stay in false arrest actions where charges are
ongoing); Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005) (stay may be issued in habeas
action to exhaust claims in “mixed petition”). The Court will not issue a stay to relieve

a plaintiff from timely prosecuting his lawsuit. If plaintiff is not able to timely
prosecute this action, plaintiff may move for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion to stay, therefore, is denied.
In his motion “requesting stay be enforced and allowing plaintiff to respond to
defendants’ motions after stay is lifted,” plaintiff requests (1) that the requested stay
be enforced, (2) an extension of time to respond to defendants’ motions to dismiss, and
(3) that defendant Steele order his employees to give plaintiff greater access to the law
library.
Plaintiff’s request that the stay be enforced is moot in light of the Court’s ruling
above. Moreover, plaintiff has already responded to the motions to dismiss. So the
request for extension of time is also moot.
A court will not issue injunctive relief unless the plaintiff “establish[es] a
relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted
in the complaint.” Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). In this
case, there is no relationship between plaintiff’s access to the law library and the
conduct asserted in the complaint. Moreover, plaintiff may not add an access to the
courts claim to this case by interlineation. And plaintiff has not alleged facts showing
that the suffered actual injury to any of his pending litigation, which is necessary to

-2-

state a claim for denial of access to the courts. Myers v. Hundley, 101 F.3d 542, 544
(8th Cir. 1996). Therefore, the motion to enforce the stay is denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to stay this action [Doc. 27]
and motion “requesting stay be enforced and allowing plaintiff to respond to
defendants’ motions after stay is lifted” [Doc. 43] are DENIED.
Dated this 12th day of July, 2012.

FREDERICK R. BUCKLES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-