Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00455/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00455-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WAYNE WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LURA MERRITT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STAY ACTION PENDING 

RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

REVOKE PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS

(Doc. 63)

Plaintiff David Wayne Wilson is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Fishburn,

1 Merritt and 

Carlson, in their individual capacities; First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant 

Merritt, in her individual capacity; Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause claim against 

Defendant Carlson, in her individual capacity; and state law equal protection clause claim against 

Defendant Carlson, in her individual capacity. (See Doc. 35 [Order Adopting Findings and 

Recommendations to Dismiss Certain Claims and Defendants Following Screening of Plaintiff’s 

First Amendment Complaint]; see also Doc. 45 [denying reconsideration of same].) 

//

//

1 Defendants’ answer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint notes “Defendant Correa is sued under the name 

‘Fishburn.’” (See Doc. 53 at 1, n.1.) 

Case 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB Document 65 Filed 06/11/24 Page 1 of 4
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

2

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 13, 2024, this Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 61.) 

Also on May 13, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis

(IFP) status (Doc. 62) and a motion to stay this action pending the Court’s determination of the 

motion to revoke IFP (Doc. 63). 

On May 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to revoke IFP status. (Doc. 

64.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition, or statement of non-opposition, to Defendants’ motion to 

stay this action and the time for doing so has now passed. 

II. DISCUSSION

In the unopposed motion to stay this action pending determination of their motion to 

revoke Plaintiff’s IFP status, Defendants contend good cause supports their request for a stay 

because a grant of the motion to revoke IFP status would require that Plaintiff pay the filing fee 

for this action, and that, if Plaintiff did not do so, the case would be subject to dismissal. (Doc. 63 

at 3.) Defendants further assert that a stay of this action is consistent with the purpose of section 

1915(g) of Title 28 of the United States Code—enacted to relieve parties and the courts from the 

burden of addressing frivolous lawsuits brought by prisoners abusing IFP status—and that they 

should not be compelled to incur the burdens associated with “pressing forward with discovery 

and other proceedings while Defendants’ IFP Motion is being decided.” (Id. at 4.) Defendants 

seek a stay of this action until the Court rules on their motion, “and, if the Court grants the IFP 

Motion, until Plaintiff pays the filing fee.” (Id.) 

The 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 (1997) (citing Landis v. North 

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” 

Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2007). 

If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it. 

Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). The party seeking the stay bears the burden 

of establishing the need to stay the action. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708.

Case 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB Document 65 Filed 06/11/24 Page 2 of 4
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

3

In considering a stay of proceedings, a court must the weigh competing interests that will 

be affected by the grant or refusal to grant a stay, including: (1) the possible damage which may 

result from the granting of a stay; (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being 

required to go forward; and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of simplifying or 

complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. 

CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55)).

Here, considering the possible damage that might result from granting a stay of this 

action, the Court finds little risk. Discovery has just commenced, and a stay of these proceedings 

will merely suspend the discovery period until a determination of the pending motion to revoke 

IFP status is issued.2If the motion to revoke Plaintiff’s IFP status is denied, the Court will issue 

an amended discovery order with new deadlines. If the motion to revoke Plaintiff’s IFP status is 

granted, and Plaintiff were directed to pay the filing fee, and did pay, the Court similarly would

issue an amended discovery order with new deadlines. And, if the motion to revoke Plaintiff’ IFP 

status were granted and Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee, the action would be dismissed, and

discovery deadlines would be immaterial. In that way, no party is disadvantaged by the requested 

stay.

Next, considering the hardship or inequity which a party might suffer in being required to 

go forward, the Court finds Defendants would suffer such hardship by being required to 

participate in discovery to meet the deadlines previously imposed before their motion is decided.3

Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the motion for stay and identify any prejudice he may suffer 

should a stay be entered also counsel’s in favor of staying the case. Finally, the Court finds the 

orderly course of justice favors a stay of these proceedings because resolution of Defendants’ 

pending motion to revoke Plaintiff’s IFP status has the potential to result in a dismissal of this 

action. In any event, a stay of these proceedings would not complicate the issues, proof, or 

2 Defendants’ motion has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

The undersigned will issue Findings and Recommendations on the motion in due course. 

3 This Court is one of the busiest district courts in the nation. All judges in this district carry heavy caseloads. Delays 

are unavoidable. 

Case 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB Document 65 Filed 06/11/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

questions of law. CMAX, Inc., 300 F.2d at 268. 

Further, Defendants’ requested stay of these proceedings is limited to the period it will 

take for the Court to issue a final ruling on their motion. Thus, it is neither indefinite nor 

especially long. Dependable Highway Exp., Inc., 498 F.3d at 1066-67; Yong, 208 F.3d at 1119. 

In sum, Defendants have met their burden of establishing the need to stay this action. 

Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to stay these proceedings (Doc. 63) is GRANTED;

2. This action is STAYED pending resolution of the motion to revoke Plaintiff’s IFP 

status, including any period that may be associated with the payment of a filing fee; 

and 

3. The Discovery and Scheduling Order issued May 13, 2024, is VACATED. The Court 

will issue an amended discovery order following resolution of the pending motion to 

revoke Plaintiff’s IFP status, when appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB Document 65 Filed 06/11/24 Page 4 of 4