Llavata v. Skolnik et al

Filing 64

ORDER Denying 56 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 8/29/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 10 11 12 13 NELSON LLAVATA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) COLE MORROW, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:11-cv-00250-GMN-CWH ORDER 14 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (#56), filed July 26, 2012; 15 Defendants’ Response (#59), filed August 1, 2012; and Plaintiff’s Reply (#60), filed August 16, 16 2012. It appears Plaintiff is requesting that the Court enter a stay pending his potential need to 17 appeal an adverse ruling on his motion for reconsideration (#52). Given that no ruling has been 18 entered on the motion for reconsideration, the request is premature. To the extent that Plaintiff is 19 requesting that the Court enter a stay until the Court is able to rule on his motion for 20 reconsideration, the request will be denied. 21 In evaluating whether to issue a stay pending an appeal, the Court must evaluate the 22 following factors: 23 24 25 1) Whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; 2) Whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; 3) Whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and 4) Where the public interest lies. 26 See Golden Gate Rest. v. City and County of San Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2008) 27 (citation omitted). Plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showing. Other than expressing his 28 general disagreement with the decision not to extend his copying privileges, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate or present any argument indicating he is likely to succeed on the merits of the 1 reconsideration. Requiring the parties to move forward will not cause irreparable harm because, as 2 the Court has indicated, Plaintiff has a remedy in that he may use carbon paper to satisfy his 3 additional copying needs. See Nevada Department of Corrections Administrative Regulation 4 702.0(9)(E) (“Carbon paper should be made available to any inmate who requests this item for 5 legal purposes . . . .”). This case has been pending for approximately 18 months and the public 6 interest lies in moving the case forward. 7 Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore, 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (#56) is denied. 9 DATED this 29th day of August, 2012. 10 11 12 ______________________________________ C.W. Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?