Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01149/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01149-3/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

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

ALLEN HAMMLER,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

COMPOSE, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:19-cv-01149-DAD-GSA-PC

 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR STAY

(ECF No. 13.)

I. BACKGROUND

Allen Hammler (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) 

On December 18, 2019, the court denied Plaintiff leave to proceed with this case in forma 

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, based on his accrual of three “strikes” for the dismissals 

of three prior cases, Hammler v. Hough, Hammler v. Kernan, and Hammler v. Hudson. (ECF 

No. 10.) Plaintiff was ordered to pay the $400.0 filing fee for this action within thirty days or 

this case will be dismissed without prejudice. (Id.) 

On January 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay the proceedings in this case pending 

resolution of his appeals to the Ninth Circuit in Hammler v. Hough and Hammler v. Kernan. 

Case 1:19-cv-01149-DAD-GSA Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 Page 1 of 4
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

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 

control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 

counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); accord Stone v. 

I.N.S., 514 U.S. 386, 411 (1995) (“[W]e have long recognized that courts have inherent power 

to stay proceedings and ‘to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of 

time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’” (Breyer, J., dissenting) (quoting Landis, 

299 U.S. at 254)). A court’s decision to grant a stay is discretionary, “dependent upon the 

circumstances of the particular case.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 432 (2009). Deciding 

whether to grant a stay pending the outcome of other proceedings “calls for the exercise of 

judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 

U.S. at 254–55. The movant bears the burden of showing the circumstances justify a stay. Id. at 

433-34; see Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). The party seeking such a stay must 

“make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a 

fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to some one [sic] else.” Id. at 

255. 

In considering whether to grant a stay, this court must weigh several factors, including 

“[1] the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or inequity 

which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and [3] the orderly course of justice 

measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which 

could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)

(citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff states that the pending decisions on appeal in Hammler v. Hough and Hammler 

v. Kernan will affect the litigation of the present case.1 Plaintiff also argues that dismissal of the 

 

1 Plaintiff first states in his motion that the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in two cases, Hammler v. 

Hough and Hammler v Kernan, will affect this case. (ECF No. 13 at 2.) Plaintiff then makes a correction, stating 

that only Hammler v. Hough is currently on appeal at the Ninth Circuit, and Hammler v. Kernan awaits the district 

court’s decision on a motion for reconsideration. (Id. at 3.)

Case 1:19-cv-01149-DAD-GSA Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 4
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

present case will result in multiple filings, purportedly because Plaintiff will file the case again. 

Also, Plaintiff asserts that he cannot afford to pay the $400.00 filing fee at this time, but he may 

be able to pay the filing fee, in time, if a stay is granted. 

Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing the circumstances justify a stay. Plaintiff has 

not shown that it is certain, or even likely, that resolution of the pending issues in Hammler v. 

Hough and Hammler v. Kernan will affect the district court’s decision in this case. Nor has 

Plaintiff made out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward without a 

stay, even considering that a stay may result in damage to someone else. In moving for this stay, 

Plaintiff’s only apparent argument is that if the stay is not granted he will most likely suffer 

dismissal of this case based on the court’s finding that he has accrued three “strikes” under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g) and is not entitled to proceed with this case in forma pauperis. Under this 

outcome Plaintiff will be allowed to refile the case because the dismissal will be without 

prejudice. (See ECF No. 10 at 3:14-15 (“Plaintiff’s failure to pay the required filing fee as 

ordered will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.”)) Where Plaintiff has not 

identified any particular harm beyond the cost of re-filing this action, the Ninth Circuit has held 

that “being required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute a ‘clear case of hardship 

or inequity’ within the meaning of Landis.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1112 (9th 

Cir. 2005). 

Because Plaintiff has not met his burden of justifying the imposition of a stay, Plaintiff’s 

motion for stay shall be denied.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for stay, filed 

on January 8, 2020, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01149-DAD-GSA Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Case 1:19-cv-01149-DAD-GSA Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 Page 4 of 4