Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00401/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00401-11/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

STANLEY W. MUNDY,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL 

MEDICAL STAFF, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-00401-KES-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

(ECF No. 60)

Plaintiff Stanley A. Mundy is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a ninety day stay of the proceedings, 

filed December 9, 2024. (ECF No. 60.) 

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)). A stay is discretionary and the “party requesting a stay 

bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken v. 

Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433–34 (2009). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” 

Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066–67 (9th Cir. 2007). 

If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it. Yong 

v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court should “balance the length of any stay 

Case 1:22-cv-00401-KES-SAB Document 61 Filed 12/11/24 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

against the strength of the justification given for it.” Id. 

Plaintiff seeks to stay the case for ninety days because he is scheduled for heart surgery on 

December 11, 2024. (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff submits that he unaware if the surgery will proceed 

as scheduled or when he will return to Mule Creek State Prison following the surgery, when it 

occurs. (Id.) As there are currently no pending deadlines for which Plaintiff was comply, the 

Court finds a stay of the proceedings unnecessary. Indeed, a review of the docket reflects that 

Defendants J. Macomber, M. Logan, O. Onyeje, S. Long, and M. Conanan response the operative 

complaint is due on or before December 27, 2024, and service of process as to Defendant 

Pimentel is pending. Should Plaintiff need an extension of time to comply with any future 

deadlines, he may file a request at that time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a stay of the 

proceedings is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2024 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:22-cv-00401-KES-SAB Document 61 Filed 12/11/24 Page 2 of 2