Roberts v. Thrasher et al

Filing 123

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 115 Motion to Stay Proceedings. Signed by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Joe Roberts, Prisoner ID: 394089)(SR)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

4
5
6

JOE JW ROBERTS, JR,

7
8
9

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

v.
TIM THRASHER, et al.,

10
11

CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00376-RSM-BAT

Defendant.
Plaintiff moves the Court to stay proceedings because "he has another case filed in this
court No. 2:18-cv-746-MJP, with identical near claims as the claims involved in this case" and
he wishes to rely upon the rulings entered in that case. Dkt. 115. Plaintiff claims he cannot
present his case here until his other case is adjudicated, and that he is "not trying to relitigate
other cases."
The Court has the inherent authority to stay a case based upon economy of time and
effort for itself, and the parties. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The propriety
of a stay depends upon the circumstances of the case. There is no right to a stay and the party
requesting a stay bears the burden of showing the circumstances justify a stay. Nken v. Holder,
556 U.S. 418, 433–34 (2009).
Plaintiff' argues the Court should stay this case so he can benefit from the rulings made
in his other case. However, if the present case is nearly identical to Plaintiff's other case, as he
avers, then Defendant may be correct to suggest the present case is duplicative, and subject to
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
TO STAY PROCEEDINGS - 1

1

dismissal, not a stay. See Dkt. 117. If this case is not duplicative, a stay in not appropriate for

2

the disposition of this case will rise and fall upon decisions made in this case, not

3

determinations made in Plaintiff's other case.

4

In an untimely reply to Defendants' response opposing a stay, Plaintiff argues

5

Defendants have not proven the Court should not order a stay of proceedings. However, the

6

burden to establish the propriety of a stay rests with Plaintiff, not Defendants, and thus this

7

argument is not a basis to grant Plaintiff's stay. Plaintiff further argues the Defendants are

8

trying to settle this case, but he will not agree to a settlement. The fact Plaintiff and Defendant

9

apparently are not in agreement on settlement does not provide a reason to delay this case.

10

The Court accordingly ORDERS:

11

(1)

Plaintiff's motion to stay, Dkt. 115, is DENIED.

12

(2)

The clerk shall provide a copy of this order to the parties.

13

DATED this 8th day of April 2021.

14

A

15

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
TO STAY PROCEEDINGS - 2