Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06066/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06066-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES LOWELL KENTZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

EARLENE SMITH,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-06066-REC-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY OF

ACTION

(Doc. 23)

Plaintiff Charles Lowell Kentz (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this

civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403

U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. This action

is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendant Earlene Smith for

discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of his sexual orientation, in violation of the Equal

Protection Clause. On September 27, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a stay in this action

pending his release from administrative segregation. Plaintiff contends that his placement in

segregation is hampering his ability to file a response to Defendant’s answer. 

In as much as Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on December 27, 2005, it

appears that Plaintiff’s ability to litigate this case is no longer being hampered. In any event, neither

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules provide for a response to an answer and

the Court has not requested one. It is therefore unnecessary for Plaintiff to file a response. Further,

although the Court will grant Plaintiff extensions of time as needed, the Court will consider staying

///

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 33 Filed 02/17/06 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

27

28

2

an action only under limited circumstances and a more restrictive housing placement does not meet

the criterion for a stay.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion seeking a stay in this action, filed September 27,

2005, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 33 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 2