Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00799/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00799-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH ALLEN SHARONOFF,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONTOYOA, et al., 

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-00799 DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO STAY ACTION

(Document 21)

Plaintiff Kenneth Allen Sharonoff (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding 

pro se and in forma pauperis in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action 

on May 27, 2015, and it is proceeding on his January 20, 2016, Third Amended Complaint.

Defendants’ responsive pleading is currently due on or before July 23, 2016.

On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that this action be stayed, or held in 

abeyance, so that he can exhaust and “conform to rule 56.” ECF No. 21, at 1. 

The Court will not stay an action while Plaintiff exhausts his administrative remedies, as 

administrative remedies must have been exhausted prior to filing in this Court. McKinney v. 

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff may not exhaust while the suit is 

pending. McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201. 

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-00799-DAD-GSA Document 22 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 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

2

To the extent Plaintiff cites Rule 56, he may move for discovery under Rule 56 if and 

when Defendants file a motion for summary judgment based on the failure to exhaust.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00799-DAD-GSA Document 22 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 2