Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00624/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00624-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

DEREK TATE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIANA NAKASHYAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00624-SKO (PC)

ORDER ISSUING STAY OF THESE 

PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION 

OF PENDING MOTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

Since late April 2024, nine substantive motions have been filed in this matter. (See Docs. 

42, 43, 48, 50, 52, 56, 59, 65, 66.) Thus far, the Court has resolved four of those motions. (See

Docs. 60 [resolving Doc. 43], 61 [resolving Docs. 42, 56, 59].) As of this date, Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment addressing the merits of Plaintiff’s claims (Doc. 50), Plaintiff’s 

motions relating to summary judgment (Docs. 52, 65, 66), and Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 

48) remain pending resolution.1

On December 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiffs Objections To The 

Magistrates Judges Ruling For Sanctions Under Rule 37(e).” (Doc. 63.) Plaintiff’s filing seeks 

reconsideration of the Court’s ruling issued December 2, 2024. 

1 On December 14, 2023, this action was reassigned to the undersigned “for all further proceedings, 

including trial and entry of judgment.” (See Doc. 37.)

Case 1:22-cv-00624-SKO Document 68 Filed 01/14/25 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

The undersigned carries a heavy caseload, as do all the judges in this district, thus delays 

are inevitable. Simply put, the Court’s limited resources are overburdened. Plaintiff’s recent 

filings of December 19 and December 30, 2024, and January 10, 2025, while important to 

Plaintiff, coupled with the earlier filed motions by the parties, may further delay these 

proceedings. To conserve its limited resources, the Court considers sua sponte a stay of these 

proceedings.

II. DISCUSSION

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)). The “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the 

power inherent in every court to control disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of 

time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254. The exertion of 

this power calls for the exercise of sound discretion.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th

Cir. 1962). And courts have the power to consider stays sua sponte. Ali v. Trump, 241 F. Supp. 3d 

1147, 1152 (W.D. Wash. 2017).

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., 300 F.2d at 268.

The Risk of Possible Damage

Here, there is no possible damage that may result from granting a stay of this action. 

Discovery has concluded2and the matter has not yet been set for trial. The stay considered by the 

Court is not indefinite. See Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 

1059, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature”). It is a 

2 To the extent resolution of Plaintiff’s motion to compel is determined to require additional discovery, the 

Court will address that circumstance should it arise. 

Case 1:22-cv-00624-SKO Document 68 Filed 01/14/25 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

temporary stay that will not cause any unnecessary delay of the resolution of the case. And absent 

a stay, Plaintiff will likely continue to file motions or requests that may tax additional resources 

and add to the backlog of motions pending in this action. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of 

a stay.

The Possibility Hardship or Inequity

There is little possibility of hardship or inequity that may be suffered by any party by 

issuance of a stay. Plaintiff and Defendants have motions pending resolution by the Court. This 

temporary stay will help ensure that all pending motions are resolved before any additional action 

can be taken by the parties absent those permitted by this order. The Court finds this factor 

weighs in favor of a stay. 

The Orderly Course of Justice

The Court finds this final factor also weighs in favor of a stay. The Court is currently 

dealing with a backlog of motions in this action. The Court finds a stay will promote judicial 

economy as it will temporarily limit the filing of additional motions or requests, while the Court

addresses the motions previously filed and addresses Plaintiff’s “objections” to the order denying 

his request for sanctions. Finally, the Court finds a stay of these proceedings would not 

complicate the issues, proof, or any applicable questions of law.

In sum, the Court finds a temporary stay of these proceeding is warranted. See also, e.g., 

Hart v. Weyrich, No. 2:23-cv-884, 2023 WL 5015616, at *1-2 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 7, 2023) 

(imposing sua sponte stay to allow court to address pending motions); Hill v. Payne, No. 6:21-cv6029, 2022 WL 22017673, at *3 (W.D. Ark. Feb. 18, 2022) (finding temporary restriction of 

motion filing reasonable in light of court resources); Liberi v. Taitz, No. SACV 11-0485 AG 

(AJWx), 2011 WL 13143549, at *5 (C.D. Cal. June 14, 2011) (imposing motion filing restriction 

and noting the “flood of filings before the Court”); Linear Technology Corp. v. Impala Linear 

Corp., No. C-98-1727 VRW, 2001 WL 36126932, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2001) (noting a 

“blizzard of motions,” staying further proceedings, and directing that no further motions may be 

filed without leave of court); see also Cole v. Xlibris Corp., No. 1:05 CV 303 M D, 2006 WL 

980808, at *2 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 12, 2006) (noting pro se plaintiff “filed multiple motions and 

Case 1:22-cv-00624-SKO Document 68 Filed 01/14/25 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

appeals” and stating “plaintiff shall file no further motions of any kind... Should the plaintiff 

attempt to file motions in violation of this order, the motions will not be filed, acknowledged or 

acted on at any time”).

Limited Anticipated Briefing Will Be Permitted

The Court recognizes Plaintiff’s filings of December 30, 2024, and January 7, 2025, mean 

that Defendants have not yet had an opportunity to file any opposition. And Plaintiff has not yet 

had an opportunity to file a reply to any such opposition. See Local Rule 230(l). Therefore, any 

opposition or reply related only to those filings will be exempt from this stay. Specifically, 

Defendants may file an opposition to: (1) “Plaintiffs Request to Supplement: Request to Deny 

Defendants Motion for Summary Judgement Under Rule 56(d)” (Doc. 65) filed December 30, 

2024; and (2) “Plaintiffs Motion To: Strike Defendants Unilateral Redacted Exhibits; Pursuant to 

Rule 5.2” (Doc. 66) filed January 7, 2025. If Defendants oppose, Plaintiff may file a reply. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. This action is STAYED pending the Court’s issuance of rulings on the motions 

currently pending on its docket;

2. Defendants may file any opposition to Plaintiff’s filings of December 30, 2024 (Doc. 

65) and January 7, 2025 (Doc. 66), as set forth in Local Rule 230(l); 

3. Plaintiff may file a reply to any opposition filed by Defendants, and only as to those 

referenced above, as set forth in Local Rule 230(1); and

4. The parties shall not file any additional motions or requests, or any additional briefing 

not expressly set forth in this Order, until the Court lifts the stay of these proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00624-SKO Document 68 Filed 01/14/25 Page 4 of 4