Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03393/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03393-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

KENNETH PHELON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

JERRY HAMMON, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 09-3393 SBA 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO STAY

Docket 38 

On July 23, 2009, Plaintiff Kenneth Phelon filed a pro se complaint against various 

Oakland police officers and other individuals and entities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

claiming that his civil rights were violated in connection with an ongoing state court criminal 

misdemeanor proceeding. Plaintiff previously filed a motion to stay the state court proceeding, 

which the Court denied on March 23, 2010. (Docket 37.) Plaintiff has now filed a motion to 

stay the instant proceeding pending his release from state custody. He claims that a stay is 

necessary due to difficulties he is experiencing in preparing his case while in jail. Plaintiff 

does not indicate the date he expects to be released. Defendants have not responded to the 

motion. 

A district court is vested with the discretion to stay an action based on its inherent 

power to control its own docket. Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 

1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983). “A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own 

docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending 

Case 4:09-cv-03393-SBA Document 40 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

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 

resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Id. In considering a stay 

request, the Court generally is to consider the following: 

(1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with 

this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential 

prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any 

particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; 

(3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, 

and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of 

persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the 

public in the pending civil and criminal litigation. 

Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 -325 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Undoubtedly, Plaintiff’s custodial status renders it more difficult for him to prepare his 

case than if he were not in custody. At the same time, however, the Court must balance 

competing concerns, such as the possible burden that a stay would impose upon the defendants 

or its possible impact on the administration of justice. Here, Plaintiff has made no showing as 

to the length of time he anticipates that he will remain in jail before he is released. Nor does he 

disclose the status of the pending charges or the circumstances that may affect his release date. 

Absent that information, the Court is unable to make an informed decision, utilizing the factors 

set forth above, as to whether a temporary stay is appropriate under the circumstances.1

 

Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceeding Pending 

Plaintiff’s Release from Custody is DENIED without prejudice to renewing his motion to 

rectify the deficiencies noted above. This Order terminates Docket 38. 

 1 Plaintiff may consider contacting counsel for Defendants to determine whether they are 

willing to stipulate to the dismissal of the instant action without prejudice, such that he would be 

able to re-file this action upon his release from custody, without adverse consequences. 

Defendants City of Oakland, Oakland Police Department and Ross Tisdell are represented by 

attorneys Geoffrey Beatty and Yvette Davis, who can be contacted at: Rankin, Sproat, Mires, 

Beatty & Reynolds, 1970 Broadway, Suite1150, Oakland, California 94612 (telephone: 510-465-

3922). The Alameda County defendants are represented by Richard Winnie and Farand Kan, who 

can be contacted at: Office of County Counsel, County of Alameda, 1221 Oak Street, Suite 450, 

Oakland, California 94612 (telephone: 510-272-6700). Defendants should be aware that in the 

event Plaintiff attempts to contact them to meet and confer regarding this or any other matter, they 

are obligated to make a good faith effort to resolve their dispute prior to seeking judicial 

intervention. The obligation to meet and confer applies likewise to Plaintiff. 

Case 4:09-cv-03393-SBA Document 40 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 3, 2010 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-03393-SBA Document 40 Filed 06/03/10 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KEN PHELON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

JEREMY D. HAMMAN et al, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Case Number: CV09-03393 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District 

Court, Northern District of California. 

That on June 3, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office. 

Kenneth D. Phelon 

2932 - 55th Avenue 

Oakland, CA 94605 

Dated: June 3, 2010 

 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 

 

 By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-03393-SBA Document 40 Filed 06/03/10 Page 4 of 4