Sullivan v. Aurich et al

Filing 95

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 90 Motion to Stay and striking Plaintiff's 93 Motion to Stay as moot. Signed by Hon. S. Kate Vaughan. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Brandon Sullivan, Prisoner ID: 323321)(LH)

Case 3:21-cv-05433-RSL-SKV Document 95 Filed 01/17/23 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
12

v.
WILLIAM AURICH et al.,

Case No. C21-5433-RSL-SKV
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STAY PROCEEDINGS AND
STRIKING DUPLICATE MOTION

Defendants.

13
14

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 42 U.S.C. §

15

1983 civil rights action. On December 14, 2022, Plaintiff moved to stay these proceedings on

16

the ground that he is “suffering pain in his writing hand.” Dkt. 90 at 4. Plaintiff states that “[i]t

17

hurts to write,” and he has “to write to take notes in the law library” and to “put motions

18

[together].” Id. As such, Plaintiff requests these proceedings be stayed until he “has received a

19

means to put together motions without writing, or until his hand is healed,” or “until he is

20

medically cleared.” Id. at 5. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion, arguing they would be

21

“extremely prejudiced” by an “unlimited stay of proceedings.” Dkt. 92 at 1. Defendants state

22

that as medical providers, “allegations such as those brought by [Plaintiff] can harm [their

23

reputation],” and granting this stay would “keep[] the specter of [Plaintiff’s] baseless allegations

24
25

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS AND STRIKING DUPLICATE
MOTION - 1

Case 3:21-cv-05433-RSL-SKV Document 95 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 3

1

over their heads without end.” Id. Defendants further posit Plaintiff’s motion is proof itself that

2

“he indeed can write so it appears he may be overstating the extent of his inability to write.” Id.

3

A district court has discretion to stay proceedings in its own court. Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

4

299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In evaluating a request for a stay, the Court considers the competing

5

interests at stake, including the possible damage which may result from a stay, the hardship or

6

inequity a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and “the orderly course of justice

7

measured in terms of simplifying or complicating the issues, proof, and questions of law which

8

could be expected to result from a stay.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir.

9

2005) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). “The proponent of a stay

10

bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). See also

11

Landis, 299 U.S. at 255 (Party seeking “a stay must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity

12

in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays

13

will work damage to [someone] else.”).

14

Here, Plaintiff fails to establish a clear case of hardship sufficient to overcome the

15

probable damage that a potentially unlimited stay may enact upon Defendants. Plaintiff has

16

provided no information as to the cause of the pain in his right hand or the nature of it. And

17

while writing with his hand may cause pain, there appears to be no other way for Plaintiff to

18

prosecute this case given his lack of access to other forms of writing. Moreover, Plaintiff has

19

neither acknowledged nor addressed the potentially unlimited nature of his requested stay and

20

how it might prejudicially impact Defendants. Under these circumstances, the Court finds no

21

justification for Plaintiff’s requested stay. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings, Dkt. 90, is

22

therefore DENIED. The Court will, however, take Plaintiff’s concerns regarding his hand into

23
24
25

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS AND STRIKING DUPLICATE
MOTION - 2

Case 3:21-cv-05433-RSL-SKV Document 95 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 3

1

consideration with regard to any request Plaintiff may make for deadline extensions as the case

2

moves forward.

3

Finally, it appears Plaintiff has filed a duplicate copy of his motion to stay proceedings at

4

Dkt. 93. Based on the Court’s denial of his motion at Dkt. 90, the Court strikes Plaintiff’s

5

motion at Dkt. 93 as moot. The Clerk is directed to STRIKE the motion to stay proceedings at

6

Dkt. 93, and to send copies of this Order to the parties and to the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik.

7

Dated this 17th day of January, 2023.

A

8
9

S. KATE VAUGHAN
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS AND STRIKING DUPLICATE
MOTION - 3