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)

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