Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01576/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01576-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WESLEY BIRRELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1576 DFL EFB P

vs.

JOSEPH BICK, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has requested that the court stay this action pending the district judge’s

resolution of plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the July 20, 2006, order denying his

motion to extend the time for discovery.

A district court has inherent power to control its docket in order to “promote economy of

time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants.” CMAX, Inc., v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268

(9th Cir. 1962) (denying petition for mandamus where district court imposed stay of civil action

pending outcome of administrative proceedings). Before entering a stay while a different court

resolves a pending matter, the court must consider the following three factors: (1) the possibility

that the resultant delay will harm the non-moving party; (2) the possibility that denying a stay

Case 2:04-cv-01576-GEB-EFB Document 39 Filed 10/18/06 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

2

will cause hardship or inequity to the moving party; and (3) whether the proceedings will be 

simplified or complicated as a result of a stay. See Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248,

254-255 (1936). 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated any likelihood he will succeed on his motion for

reconsideration. A stay would not benefit plaintiff or simplify matters for the court, but it would

cause delay. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s September 18, 2006, motion to stay these

proceedings is denied.

Dated: October 17, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01576-GEB-EFB Document 39 Filed 10/18/06 Page 2 of 2