Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01872/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01872-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

3:16-cv-1872-CAB-(BLM)

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

DARREN CHAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEESA FAZAL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-1872-CAB-(BLM)

ORDER ON EX PARTE MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

AND MOTION TO STAY 

PROCEEDINGS

[Doc. No. 53]

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s third ex-parte application for 

appointment of counsel, or in the alternative, motion to staying the proceedings [Doc. No. 

53.] For the reasons discussed below, the motion is DENIED.

Motion to Stay Proceedings

On July 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed suit alleging multiple violations of his constitutional 

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. No. 1.] On April 25, 2017, after granting Plaintiff 

multiple extensions to effectuate service upon Defendants, the Court issued an Order of 

Dismissal for failure to prosecute. [Doc. No. 33.] On May 15, 2017, the Court granted 

Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to reinstate the case. [Doc. No. 37.] On July 28, 2017, Plaintiff

filed the current motion. [Doc. No. 53] 

Courts have inherent power to manage their dockets and stay proceedings. See 

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706(1997); Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 

(1936) (district court has inherent power to manage its docket and courtroom with a view 

Case 3:16-cv-01872-CAB-BLM Document 54 Filed 08/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:16-cv-1872-CAB-(BLM)

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

toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases). Factors to consider when deciding 

to stay a proceeding include: (1) the possible damage which may result from granting a 

stay, (2) the hardship a party may suffer if the case is allowed to go forward, and (3) “the 

orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, 

proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Lockyer v. 

Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005).

The Motion asserts that this matter should be stayed and counsel appointed otherwise 

the Court would be “discard[ing] the rights of a seriously ill person who was thrusted into 

jail twice and vindicated on both occasions for alleged defamation and drug use, by 

disallowing him the opportunity to oppose dismissal.” [Doc No. 53 at 1.] Aside from his 

health issues, Plaintiff provides no other argument in support of his motion to stay the

proceedings. 

At this early stage in the litigation the Court sees no benefit in granting the stay. 

Previously, the Court extended the deadline for Plaintiff to serve Defendants and also 

increased the time Plaintiff had to respond to the motions to dismiss. As a result of 

Plaintiff’s non-opposition, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss with leave to 

amend. [Doc. No. 50.] Any undue harm and irreparable injury that Plaintiff claims will 

result from the non-issuance of a stay has already been avoided by the Court dismissing 

the current action without prejudice and by giving him, up to and including August 17, 

2017, to file an amended complaint. Furthermore, staying these proceedings would not 

result in the efficient and expedient resolution of this case. In fact, if the Court were to 

issue an indefinite stay the opposite could occur. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Plaintiffs application to stay these proceedings.

Motion for appointment of counsel

For the same reasons the Court articulated in its earlier orders [Doc. Nos. 15, 20], 

the renewed motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

Order

The Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

Case 3:16-cv-01872-CAB-BLM Document 54 Filed 08/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:16-cv-1872-CAB-(BLM)

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

1. The petition to appoint counsel for Darren Chaker is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. 

2. The Motion to Stay these proceedings is DENIED.

3. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, by the August 17, 2017 deadline,

the Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01872-CAB-BLM Document 54 Filed 08/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3