Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05439/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05439-16/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

CHRIS EDDIE GREENE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANCHEZ, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5439 AWI LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY

(Doc. 50-1) 

 Chris Eddie Greene (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On December 8, 2005, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the action on the grounds

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. This Motion is currently pending before

the Court. 

On March 16, 2006, Defendants moved to stay this action pending a decision by the U.S.

Supreme Court in Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 126 S.Ct. 647

(2005) (holding that where an appeal is rejected as untimely exhaustion has occurred). 

Defendants state that Plaintiff, in his Reply to the Motion, has provided evidence indicating that

an relevant inmate appeal was screened out as untimely. Thus, Defendants argue that a decision

by the U.S. Supreme Court in Ngo will be dispositive of this case.

Case 1:04-cv-05439-AWI-LJO Document 51 Filed 03/21/06 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

The Supreme Court of the United States has indicated clearly that “the power to stay

proceedings 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. 

How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing

interest and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. North America Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, 57

S.Ct. 163, 166 (1936.) “The proponent of the stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” 

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 1650 (1997). Thus, the moving party

“must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is

even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to someone else.” 

Landis, 299 U.S. at 355, 57 S.Ct. at 166. 

Here, Defendants contend that requiring them to proceed with the case “would be unduly

burdensome and a waste of judicial resources.” (Motion at 3.) The Court does not agree. 

As the Court has many similar motions pending before it at any given time, it is uncertain 

when the Court will resolve the pending Motion to Dismiss. Thus, at this time, no action is

required of Defendants and a denial of the stay would not be unduly burdensome. The Court

notes further that the motion pending is a pre-answer Motion and no Answer has yet been

submitted in the Case. Were the Court to resolve the Motion in Plaintiff’s favor, Defendants

would only be required to submit an Answer which also, is not unduly burdensome. Upon

submission of an Answer the Court issues a scheduling order which then sets forth various

deadlines including a deadline for the filing of yet another dispositive motion.

Finally, the Court finds the impending decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue

insufficient grounds to justify a stay. The Ninth Circuit has made clear that once an opinion is

entered on its docket and forwarded for publication, it “is . . . final for such purpose as stare

decisis and full faith and credit unless it is withdrawn by the court.” Wedbush, Noble, Cooke,

Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 714 F.2d 923, 924 (9th Cir. 1983.) As such, this

Court is bound to proceed unless and until applicable authority is no longer reliable. See, Yong

v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000), citing

McClellan v. Young, 421 F.2d 690, 691 (6th Cir. 1970) (district court cannot await a ruling by the

Case 1:04-cv-05439-AWI-LJO Document 51 Filed 03/21/06 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

Supreme Court before applying circuit court’s decision as binding authority). A pending

decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on certiorari does not render the Ninth Circuit’s holding in

Ngo unreliable. 

Accordingly, the Motion to Stay the case is DENIED. Should the U.S. Supreme Court

issue a decision that would be dispositive of the exhaustion issue in this case, Defendants may

supplement the Motion to Dismiss or file a subsequent motion on that basis. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05439-AWI-LJO Document 51 Filed 03/21/06 Page 3 of 3