Brothers v. Neven et al
Filing
57
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 53 defendants' motion to stay be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 51 defendants' motion to strike be, and same hereby is, GRANTED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/26/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)
Case 2:17-cv-00641-JCM-BNW Document 57 Filed 06/26/20 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
TERRANCE D. BROTHERS,
8
Plaintiff(s),
9
10
Case No. 2:17-CV-641 JCM (BNW)
ORDER
v.
DSWIGHT NEVEN, et al.,
11
Defendant(s).
12
13
Presently before the court is defendants Dwight Neven and Romeo Aranas’s (collectively
14
“defendants”) motion to stay the case pending determination on defendants’ motion for
15
screening. (ECF No. 53). Plaintiff responded, (ECF No. 56), and defendants filed no reply.
16
Also before the court is defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s letter on the docket. (ECF
17
No. 51). Plaintiff responded, (ECF No. 54), and defendants replied, (ECF No. 55).
18
I.
Facts
19
On March 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a civil right complaint, (ECF No. 1), which this court
20
screened and dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to adequately allege a claim,
21
(ECF No. 3).
22
On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint, (ECF No. 5), which this
23
court also screened, (ECF No. 6). This court allowed a single claim for deliberate indifference to
24
proceed against defendants. (Id.). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the remaining claim of
25
the first amended complaint, (ECF No. 19), which this court granted, (ECF No. 26).
26
On January 30, 2020, plaintiff filed his second amended complaint (“SAC”). (ECF No.
27
49). Plaintiff then submitted a letter to this court, alleging that defendant Neven is now a warden
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Case 2:17-cv-00641-JCM-BNW Document 57 Filed 06/26/20 Page 2 of 3
1
in Carson City and that plaintiff “truly believe[s]” he is interfering with his legal mail. (ECF No.
2
50).
3
Defendants moved to screen plaintiff’s SAC. (ECF No. 52). Defendants also filed the
4
instant motions to strike plaintiff’s letter and stay the case until plaintiff’s SAC is screened.
5
(ECF Nos. 51 & 53).
6
II.
Legal Standard
7
A. Stay Proceedings
8
A stay of proceedings, though not expressly provided for by the Federal Rules of Civil
9
Procedure, is an inherent authority under this court’s general equity powers and in the efficient
10
management of their dockets.
11
In determining whether to grant a motion to stay, “the competing interests which will be
12
affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp.,
13
398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). These interests include: 1) possible damage that may result
14
from a stay, 2) any hardship or inequity a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and
15
3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues,
16
proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. Id.
17
The moving party bears the burden of proving that a stay is warranted. American Honda
18
Motor Co. v. The Coast Distribution System, 2007 WL 672521, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2007)
19
(citing Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997)). The moving party “must make out a clear
20
case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1109; see
21
Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007).
22
B. Strike Correspondence
23
Per the local rules of this court, pro se litigants “must not send case-related
24
correspondence, such as letters, . . . to the court.” LR IA 7-1(b). A court may “strike any case-
25
related correspondence filed in the court’s docket that is not styled as a motion, stipulation, or
26
notice.” Id.
27
...
28
...
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-2-
Case 2:17-cv-00641-JCM-BNW Document 57 Filed 06/26/20 Page 3 of 3
1
III.
Discussion
2
Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to stay, arguing that the parties should not expend
3
resources on this case until the SAC is screened by this court. (ECF No. 53). Plaintiff responds
4
that the delay is unnecessary, because the SAC “was only amended in the capacity in which to
5
sue.” (ECF No. 56).
6
A stay is warranted on these facts. A stay until the SAC is screened will conserve the
7
resources of all parties until the contours of this matter are clarified by this court, and ensure a
8
just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the issues. No harms are argued by plaintiff due
9
to the stay. (Id.). Indeed, his medical issues were resolved. (ECF No. 46). The foregoing
10
reasons indicate that all three interests favor granting a stay until the SAC is screened. See
11
Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110.
Finally, per Local Rule IA 7-1(b), this court strikes plaintiff’s letter. (ECF No. 50). This
12
13
court will not opine on the truth or falsity of defendant’s letter.
14
IV.
Conclusion
15
Accordingly,
16
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that defendants’ motion to
17
18
19
20
21
22
stay (ECF No. 53) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to strike (ECF No. 51) be, and
same hereby is, GRANTED.
DATED June 26, 2020.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-3-
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?