Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00269/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00269-39/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT BRUCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendant.

1:07-cv-00269-BAM (PC) 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ EX 

PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY BRIEFING 

ON PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS

(ECF No. 238)

I. Background

On October 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a 120-day extension of time to 

extend the deadlines in the second scheduling order. (ECF No. 235). On that same date, Plaintiff 

filed a motion for the Court to revise its summary judgment ruling. (ECF No. 236). On October 

28, 2016, he filed a motion for the appointment of counsel for trial. (ECF No. 237). A settlement 

conference is currently scheduled in this matter for December 6, 2016, and trial is scheduld for 

February 14, 2017. 

On November 7, 2016, Defendants filed the instant ex parte application requesting a stay 

of further briefing on Plaintiff’s pending motions requesting the Court to revise its summary 

judgment ruling and requesting the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 238). Defendants indicate 

that their responses to the motions are due on November 14 and 16, 2016, respectively. 

Defendants now request that the Court say the briefing on these motions until after the December 

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 240 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 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 2

6, 2016 settlement conference has been held. Defendants contend that the stay will allow the 

parties to avoid unnecessary briefing and will prevent burdening of the Court’s docket. 

Defendants also contend that the settlement conference may obviate the need for further briefing 

on Plaintiff’s pending motions. (Id.)

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 party seeking the stay bears the burden of 

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

In this instance, the Court finds that Defendants have adequately established the need to 

stay briefing on Plaintiff’s motion requesting the Court to revise its summary judgment ruling. 

Given the upcoming settlement conference, a stay of this motion will preserve judicial and party 

resources, and may avoid unnecessary briefing. The short delay also will not result in prejudice 

to the parties. However, the Court does not find that a stay of the motion for the appointment of 

counsel to be necessary in order to preserve judicial or party resources. The Court intends to 

address that motion by separate order and does not find a response from Defendants essential or 

necessary. 

As a final matter, the Court notes that Defendants have not addressed the pending motion 

for a 120-day extension of time. (ECF No. 235). Unless otherwise directed, Defendants’ 

response to the motion for a 120-day extension of time shall be filed on or before November 14, 

2016. Local Rule 230(l). Defendants are not precluded from requesting an extension of time 

supported by good cause or stay of briefing on this motion. 

III. Conclusion and Order

For these reasons, Defendants’ ex parte application to stay briefing on Plaintiff’s pending 

motions is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

1. Defendants’ request for a stay of briefing on Plaintiff’s motion requesting the Court 

revise its summary judgment ruling is GRANTED pending completion of the 

settlement conference set for December 6, 2016. If the action does not settle, 

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 240 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 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 3

Defendants response to the motion shall be due on or before December 20, 2016, with 

any reply due on or before December 27, 2016; and

2. Defendants’ request for a stay of briefing on Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 

counsel for trial is DENIED. The Court will address the pending motion by separate 

order. A response from Defendants is not required. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00269-BAM Document 240 Filed 11/09/16 Page 3 of 3