Sullivan v. Aurich et al

Filing 83

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 79 Motion to Stay. Objections deadline to 67 Report and Recommendation is now May 20, 2022. Signed by Hon. S. Kate Vaughan. (LH) (cc: Plaintiff via US mail)

Download PDF
Case 3:21-cv-05433-TL-SKV Document 83 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 BRANDON R. SULLIVAN, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 v. WILLIAM AURICH et al., Case No. C21-5433-TL-SKV ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY Defendant. 12 13 14 Plaintiff is a state prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 42 15 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. On April 8, 2022, Plaintiff moved to stay these proceedings on 16 the ground that he was being moved to King County Jail for court proceedings and would not 17 have access to legal materials he deems “essential to his case.” Dkt. 79 at 1. Defendants 18 opposes Plaintiff’s motion, arguing he has failed to demonstrate good cause for a stay because 19 (1) he has not explained what documents he believes are essential, meaning the Court cannot 20 evaluate this assertion; (2) he has no federal legal right to bring legal materials with him to King 21 County Jail; and (3) he will have the ability to conduct legal research while at King County Jail. 22 Dkt. 81 at 1–2. 23 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY - 1 Case 3:21-cv-05433-TL-SKV Document 83 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 3 1 A district court has discretion to stay proceedings in its own court. Landis v. North 2 American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In evaluating a request for a stay, the Court considers 3 the competing interests at stake, including the possible damage which may result from a stay, the 4 hardship or inequity a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and “the orderly course 5 of justice measured in terms of simplifying or complicating the issues, proof, and questions of 6 law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 7 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). “The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” 8 Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). See also Landis, 299 U.S. at 255 (providing that the 9 party seeking “a stay must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go 10 forward, if there is even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to 11 [someone] else.”). 12 Here, Plaintiff fails to establish a need for the requested stay. While Objections to the 13 Court’s November 23, 2021, Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ Motion for Judgment 14 on the Pleadings, Dkt. 67, are currently due May 13, 2022, see Dkt. 80, Defendants have 15 demonstrated that Plaintiff is able to access King County Jail’s law library while in custody 16 there. Dkt. 81 at 2–3. Therefore, his transfer should not impede his ability to prosecute his civil 17 case. Under these circumstances, the Court finds no justification for the stay requested by 18 Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay, Dkt. 79, is therefore DENIED. The Court will, however, 19 extend the Objections deadline by an additional week to May 20, 2022, to allow Plaintiff to 20 schedule time at the Jail’s legal research workstations and prepare his Objections. 21 22 Plaintiff should further advise the Court of any changes to his location. In the meantime, any future motions, orders, or other materials are to be served on Plaintiff at King County Jail. 23 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY - 2 Case 3:21-cv-05433-TL-SKV Document 83 Filed 05/09/22 Page 3 of 3 1 The Clerk is directed to re-note the Objections deadline for May 20, 2022, and to send copies of 2 this Order to the parties and to the Honorable Tana Lin. 3 Dated this 9th day of May, 2022. 4 5 A 6 S. KATE VAUGHAN United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY - 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?