Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02911/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02911-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:18-cv-2911-JAH-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANNON RILEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

VIZCARRA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-2911-JAH-AHG

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO STAY

[ECF No. 34]

Before the Court is Plaintiff Shannon Riley’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Stay 

Proceedings. ECF No. 34. Plaintiff requests that proceedings in this case be stayed for two 

months or until July 1, 2020, whichever is sooner. Id. at 2. Plaintiff anticipates being 

transferred to the Los Angeles County Jail regarding an evidentiary hearing in a related 

criminal case. Id. at 1. Since he does not know how long the Los Angeles proceedings will 

last, Plaintiff represents to the Court that he believes he will not be able to effectively 

litigate or adequately respond to any motions Defendants may file in the instant case. Id. 

at 2.

A district court has “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power 

to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706–07 (1997) (citing Landis v. 

Case 3:18-cv-02911-JAH-AHG Document 35 Filed 04/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:18-cv-2911-JAH-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is 

incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on 

its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis, 

299 U.S. at 254. However, “[t]he proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its 

need.” Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708; see also Roberts v. Beard, No. 15cv104-WQH-PCL, 2017 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113388, at *5–*6 (S.D. Cal. July 19, 2017) (denying motion to stay filed 

by an inmate-plaintiff in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action because he did not show sufficient good 

cause); Turner v. San Diego Cent. Jail, No. 13cv1133-WQH-BGS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

165901, at *4–*6 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2013) (denying motion to stay filed by an inmateplaintiff in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action because he did not meet “his burden of showing that 

a stay of this action is necessary”).

Here, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 10, 2020. ECF No. 28. In 

response to Plaintiff’s request for an extension, the Court set an amended briefing schedule 

in the matter, requiring that Plaintiff file his opposition brief by April 3, 2020 and 

Defendants file their reply brief by April 13, 2020. ECF No. 31. Plaintiff timely filed his 

opposition brief on March 9, 2020. ECF No. 32. No sur-replies were permitted. In light of 

the pending motion to dismiss, there is no scheduling order in this case, and discovery has 

not yet begun. Thus, Plaintiff’s worry that he will not be able to “effectively litigate and/or

adequately respond to any motions the court or the defendants may file” does not establish 

good cause. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s opposition brief, and, until the motion to 

dismiss is decided by the Court, there is nothing that Plaintiff needs to do at this time with 

regard to the instant case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay is DENIED without 

prejudice. The Court will reconsider Plaintiff’s request should additional filings be 

required—however, to be clear, nothing is due at this time or in the near future.

It is unclear from Plaintiff’s motion whether he is being permanently transferred to 

the Los Angeles County Jail, or whether he is being transferred there solely to attend the 

evidentiary hearing. See ECF No. 34 at 3. Should the transfer be long-term or permanent, 

Case 3:18-cv-02911-JAH-AHG Document 35 Filed 04/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:18-cv-2911-JAH-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Court points Plaintiff to this district’s Local Civil Rule 83.11, which requires that a 

“party proceeding pro se must keep the court and opposing parties advised as to current 

address.” CivLR 83.11(b). Plaintiff is reminded of his responsibility to help the court, and, 

should he be transferred long-term or permanently, he must file a Notice of Change of 

Address. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-02911-JAH-AHG Document 35 Filed 04/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3