Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02420/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02420-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC ANTHONY ALSTON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-02420-TLN-CKD PS

ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in 

accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Before the court is plaintiff’s 

motion to stay pending interlocutory appeal. (ECF No. 25.) On July 26, 2019, the court on its 

own motion submitted plaintiff’s motion to stay and vacated the July 31, 2019 hearing date under 

Local Rule 230(g). (ECF No. 30.)

II. Background

On February 7, 2019, the undersigned entered findings and recommendations 

recommending dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against all defendants except his § 1983, California 

Bane Act, and battery claims against defendant Ken Lloyd (Claims 5, 6, and 10, respectively). 

(ECF No. 20.) On May 31, 2019, District Judge Troy L. Nunley adopted the findings and 

recommendations and dismissed with prejudice the claims in this action as to all defendants 

Case 2:18-cv-02420-TLN-CKD Document 31 Filed 07/31/19 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

except Claims 5, 6, and 10 against Lloyd. (ECF No. 23.) Lloyd was ordered to answer the 

remaining claims. (Id.) On June 18, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of interlocutory appeal. (ECF 

No. 26.) Plaintiff also filed the instant motion to stay pending resolution of appeal. (ECF No. 

25.) Defendants did not file an opposition to plaintiff’s motion to stay.

III. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay

A stay is “not a matter of right” but “an exercise of judicial discretion and the propriety of 

its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 

418, 433 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Under Nken, the party 

requesting a stay “bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of [the 

court’s] discretion.” Id. at 433–34. Courts consider the following factors when deciding a motion 

to stay: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he or she is likely to 

succeed on the merits, (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay, 

(3) whether the issuance of a stay will substantially injure the other person interested in the 

proceeding, and (4) where the public interest lies. Id. at 434 (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 

U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). “There is substantial overlap between these and the factors governing 

preliminary injunctions.” Id. (citing Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 

7, 24 (2008)). 

Here, plaintiff argues in his motion that this matter should be stayed “pending resolution 

of the appeal of the previous [eight] defendants.” (ECF No. 25 at 4.) Plaintiff cites to cases 

involving, among other things, a stay pending resolution of a separate arbitration where the court 

found it would be efficient to enter a stay pending resolution of contract claims that would be of 

valuable assistance in resolving the claims that remained before the court. (Id. (citing Leyva v. 

Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857 (1979).) Plaintiff argues that the court’s resources

will be preserved, and a stay will reduce the risk of inconsistent rulings that might need to be 

disentangled. (ECF No. 25 at 4–5.) 

Regarding the factors relevant to a stay, plaintiff has made no showing that his appeal is 

likely to succeed on the merits. Nor has plaintiff established any of the remaining factors weigh 

in favor of granting a motion to stay, including whether plaintiff will be irreparably injured absent 

Case 2:18-cv-02420-TLN-CKD Document 31 Filed 07/31/19 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

a stay and where the public interest lies. Plaintiff also failed to show how the Ninth Circuit’s 

ruling on his appeal of a motion to dismiss order will affect further litigation of the remaining 

claims against Lloyd. This is not a case where, for example, resolution of plaintiff’s appeal will 

significantly narrow the issues that will affect the scope of discovery and motion practice. 

Plaintiff has also not established that the order granting the motion to dismiss in part is an 

appealable order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (granting jurisdiction generally to the circuit courts only 

over “final decisions” of the district courts); Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, 

Inc., 375 F.3d 861, 869–72 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that dismissal is appealable if it adjudicates all 

matters and is the court’s final act in suit that leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the 

judgment); Dream Games of Ariz., Inc. v. PC Onsite, 561 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(explaining that the Ninth Circuit has “jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 from a final judgment 

that disposes of all claims with respect to all parties”); Long v. United States, 972 F.2d 1174, 

1178 n.5 (10th Cir. 1992) (“Finality does not attach to an order that dismisses some but not all 

defendants in an action.” (citing Perington Wholesale, Inc. v. Burger King Corp., 631 F.2d 1369, 

1370 n.2 (10th Cir. 1979); 15A Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: 

Jurisdiction 2d § 3914.7, at 549–51)).

For these reasons, the court finds no reason to stay the case pending plaintiff’s attempt to 

appeal the order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss in part.

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to stay (ECF No. 25) is

DENIED.

Dated: July 30, 2019

15 alston2420.mts

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:18-cv-02420-TLN-CKD Document 31 Filed 07/31/19 Page 3 of 3