Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00726/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00726-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LOUIS SPEARS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANK CHANG,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00726-SKO (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND 

STAYING CASE FOR NINETY DAYS

(Doc. 33)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

(Doc. 32) 

Plaintiff John Louis Spears is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

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

I. INTRODUCTION

On March 4, 2024, Defendant Chang filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

(Doc. 31.) More than 21 days passed without Plaintiff having filed an opposition or a statement 

of non-opposition. On April 2, 2024, the Court issued its Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) Why 

Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Plaintiff’s Failure to File an Opposition or Statement of 

Non-Opposition. (Doc. 32.) Plaintiff was directed to respond within 21 days. (Id. at 2.) 

On April 10, 2024, the United States Postal Service returned the OSC marked 

“Undeliverable, Unable to Forward.” (Docket entry dated 4/10/24.) On May 2, 2024, the Clerk of 

the Court re-served the OSC to Plaintiff at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, 

Case 1:22-cv-00726-KES-SKO Document 35 Filed 05/23/24 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

California. (Docket entry dated 5/2/24.)

On May 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion to Stay Proceedings Due to 

Mental Health Treatment.” (Doc. 33.) More than 21 days have passed without Defendant having 

filed an opposition nor a statement of non-opposition. Thus, the Court will treat Plaintiff’s motion 

as unopposed. 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiff seeks a stay of these proceedings due to his mental health status. (Doc. 33.) 

Plaintiff states he has been in a mental health crisis bed since March 11, 2024, and on April 10, 

2024, became a participant in the psychiatric inpatient program. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff states he 

“needs time to get his mental health in order, discharged from this higher level of mental health 

care program,” before he can effectively litigate this matter. (Id.) Plaintiff’s motion is supported 

by exhibits indicating he was admitted to the California Medical Facility’s Mental Health Crisis 

Bed Facility on March 11, 2024 (id. at 2-5 [Ex. A]) and became a participant in its psychiatric 

inpatient program on April 10, 2024 (id. at 6-10 [Ex. B]). 

Analysis

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). 

As noted above, Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed and Plaintiff has established good cause 

for a stay of these proceedings. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for a stay. Although 

Plaintiff does not state how long of a stay he seeks, the Court will stay this action for 90 days to 

allow Plaintiff to continue mental health treatment. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 706; Dependable 

Highway Exp., Inc., 498 F.3d at 1066-67. If after 90 days Plaintiff believes the stay of this action 

should continue due to his mental health status, he shall file a renewed request with the Court. 

Case 1:22-cv-00726-KES-SKO Document 35 Filed 05/23/24 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

Any subsequent request should include the length of the stay Plaintiff believes is necessary and 

shall be supported by relevant documentation. The Court will also discharge the previously issued 

OSC and will re-set the deadline for the filing of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s pending 

motion to dismiss once the stay of these proceedings has been lifted. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to stay these proceedings (Doc. 33) is GRANTED;

2. This action is STAYED for 90 days from the date of this order; 

3. The deadline to oppose Defendant’s motion to dismiss will be re-set once the stay of 

these proceedings is lifted; and

4. The OSC issued April 2, 2024 (Doc. 32) is DISCHARGED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00726-KES-SKO Document 35 Filed 05/23/24 Page 3 of 3