Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06297/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06297-1/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

EARNEST L. LEWIS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

E.S. ALAMEIDA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 6297 OWW LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY 

(Doc. 16.) 

 Earnest L. Lewis, Jr. (“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. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on September 22, 2003. On October 1, 2003, Plaintiff

filed a First Amended Complaint. On January 15, 2004, the Court dismissed the Complaint with

leave to amend and Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on February 9, 2004. This

Complaint was dismissed on March 25, 2005. A Third Amended Complaint on April 27, 2005. 

Along with the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff moved to Stay the proceedings. Plaintiff

requests that the Court stay the instant action because he is in the process of litigating custody of

his daughter, who is temporarily held in Foster Care. Such proceedings require Plaintiff’s

temporary transfer to another facility where he alleges he will not have sufficient contact with the

Court or access to the law library. In addition, Plaintiff alleges a stay is required because he is

litigating another action in the Northern District. 

Case 1:03-cv-06297-OWW -LJO Document 22 Filed 06/02/05 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

Plaintiff does not provide the Court with sufficient cause to stay the action. The Court has 

not yet had the opportunity to conduct a fourth screening of Plaintiff’s case, thus, there is no

outstanding requirement that Plaintiff file anything with the Court. In addition, there are no

parties to the case as of yet and thus, no one but Plaintiff can be expected to file anything in the

action requiring any activity by Plaintiff or the Court. As for Plaintiff’s transfer, he may still

maintain contact with the Court by keeping the Court informed as to his current address. 

Plaintiff’s concerns about law library access are speculative and given that the Court has not yet

required any action on the part of Plaintiff, no access to the law library is required, at least with

respect to this case. Finally, Plaintiff’s justification that having to litigate this case in addition to

two others is not good cause to stay an action. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to stay the action is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06297-OWW -LJO Document 22 Filed 06/02/05 Page 2 of 2