Khan v. Barela et al
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar DENYING as moot 71 , 72 , 73 , and 74 Plaintiff's motions to stay case and also to lift stay of case. (am)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
No. 15-cv-1151 MV/SMV
CHRIS BARELA, et al.,
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AS MOOT
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Erik Khan’s Motion to Stay Proceedings
[Doc. 71], letter motion to stay proceedings [Doc. 72], Motion to Continue Stay [Doc. 73], and
Motion to Lift Stay and Resume Proceedings [Doc. 74]. The Court will deny Khan’s Motions as
In his Motions to stay proceedings, Khan sought a stay to allow him to complete transfers
within the Bureau of Prisons and between federal and Arizona state custody. During this period
of time, Khan’s address has changed several times, mail has been returned to the Court as
undeliverable, and Mr. Khan’s address has been updated twice on notice from Mr. Khan, and
three times, sua sponte, by the Court. See [Docs. 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, and 75]. In
his Motion to Lift Stay and Resume Proceedings [Doc. 74], Khan has advised the Court that his
transfers and time in state custody have been completed, and he has updated his Bureau of
Prisons address. Therefore, Khan’s requests for a stay of proceedings and to lift any stay are
now moot. Plaintiff Khan is reminded of his continuing obligation to advise the Court of
changes in his address as required by D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.6 and notified that the Court will not
further stay these proceedings during facility or custody transfers. See Bradenburg v. Beaman,
632 F.2d 120, 122 (10th Cir. 1980).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff
Erik Khan’s Motion to Stay Proceedings [Doc. 71], letter motion to stay proceedings [Doc. 72],
Motion to Continue Stay [Doc. 73], and Motion to Lift Stay and Resume Proceedings [Doc. 74]
are DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
STEPHAN M. VIDMAR
United States Magistrate Judge
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?