Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01948/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01948-29/pdf.json

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES PABLO PATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO STAY THIS ACTION 

(Doc. 112)

20-DAY DEADLINE

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff claims that the defendants knowingly placed an enemy gang member in his cell 

and thereafter failed to intervene when a violent altercation occurred. Defendants filed a motion 

for summary judgment and the Court issued findings and recommendations (“F&R”) issued to 

grant the motion because there was no evidence Defendants were aware of the risk of harm to 

Plaintiff. (Docs. 103, 109.) Objections to the findings and recommendations were due by 

September 29, 2016. (Doc. 109.) Plaintiff requested and received a 30-day extension of time, 

which made his objections due by November 11, 2016. (Docs. 110, 111.) Plaintiff has now filed 

a motion to stay the deadline for filing objections to the findings and recommendation.1 (Doc. 

112.) 

 

1

Though the time for Defendants to file an opposition has not lapsed, Local Rule 230(l), they are not prejudiced 

since Plaintiff’s motion is being denied. 

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 113 Filed 11/08/16 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

In his motion, Plaintiff indicates that prior to the Court issuing findings and 

recommendations, he had “lately correspondence with an attorney interested to review and take 

(sic) case.” (Doc. 112, p. 1.) Plaintiff asserts that Inmate Robles and others may have evidence 

relevant to his claims and that he was unable to afford the costs of obtaining the evidence from 

those inmates. (Id., p. 2.) Plaintiff requests a stay on the deadline to file objections to the F&R 

“pending attorneys review and access of evidentiary based on ‘state of mind’ disputes. May take 

4 months, depending to court allowing other motions (sic) subpoenas allowing access to court 

records again.” Plaintiff further indicates that he has an “attorney paralegal” working on his case 

who will need an extension of time to file objections on Plaintiff’s behalf. (Id.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings. This power to stay is 

“incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its 

docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North 

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Gold v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 723 F.2d 

1068, 1077 (3d Cir.1983) (holding that the power to stay proceedings comes from the power of 

every court to manage the cases on its docket and to ensure a fair and efficient adjudication of the 

matter at hand). This is best accomplished by the “exercise of judgment, which must weigh 

competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55. 

In determining whether a stay is warranted, courts consider the potential prejudice to the 

non-moving party; the hardship or inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and the 

judicial resources that would be saved by simplifying the case or avoiding duplicative litigation if 

the case before the court is stayed. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.1962). The 

Ninth Circuit “has sustained or authorized in principle Landis stays on several occasions.” 

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

Plaintiff seeks to stay this action so that he might secure legal counsel, who may thereafter 

be able to obtain evidence via other inmates who were involved in and/or witnessed the incident 

at issue in this action. However, Plaintiff’s motion for subpoenas to obtain such 

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 113 Filed 11/08/16 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

information/evidence was granted about six months ago. (Doc. 70.) That order directed Plaintiff 

to submit a declaration showing his ability and willingness to pay for the charges for copying the 

documents he desired and a copy of the order was forwarded to Inmate Robles (CDCR #G28561) 

who was permitted to file objections. (Id.) Plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing at that 

time. Now, despite indicating that at least part of his desire behind the present motion is to obtain 

those documents, Plaintiff makes no statement upon which to find that he is willing and able to 

pay the accompanying costs. Plaintiff indicates that he corresponded with an attorney interested 

in reviewing and taking his case before the Second Informational Order issued on June 20, 2016. 

However, Plaintiff provides no information as to why any such attorney review has not been 

completed in the four months that have since lapsed. 

Plaintiff also indicates that he has an “attorney paralegal” assisting him and that person 

needs an extension of time to file objections on Plaintiff’s behalf. However, Plaintiff neither 

identifies this person, nor gives any basis to find good cause to grant the desired stay, or an 

extension of time for their services on his behalf. 

Plaintiff indicates that he has been corresponding with various legal professionals

regarding representation since Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment. (See Docs. 

105, 110, 112.) However, no such person has materialized to undertake Plaintiff’s representation. 

This action has been pending for nearly four years and involves an incident that occurred over 

seven years ago. Further delay is likely to prejudice Defendants since recollections fade with the 

passage of time. A stay of this action for Plaintiff to obtain assistance from an attorney is not 

justified merely on the assertion that counsel may undertake Plaintiff’s representation. Though 

the effect of denying Plaintiff’s motion is likely disposition of this action, the Court has provided 

him with repeated extensions of time and guidance regarding the requirements of opposing

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. No judicial resources will be saved as the stay 

Plaintiff seeks will not simplify the case or avoid duplicative litigation. CMAX, Inc., 300 F.2d at

268.

Nevertheless the Court will grant Plaintiff one, final extension of time to file objections to 

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 113 Filed 11/08/16 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

the F&R. 

III. ORDER 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion to stay the action is DENIED, 

but Plaintiff is granted 20 days from the date of service of this order to file objections to the 

findings and recommendation to grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 113 Filed 11/08/16 Page 4 of 4