Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00302/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00302-10/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD A. GLASS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-00-0302 DFL JFM P

vs.

CAL TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 24, 2006, defendants filed a motion to

stay this action pending decision in Jones v. Bock, Supreme Court Case No. 05-7058, and

Williams v. Overton, Supreme Court Case No. 05-7142. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Defendants contend that rulings in these pending United States Supreme Court

cases will be dispositive of plaintiff’s right to pursue this matter, because the court will resolve

the “total exhaustion rule” and the Sixth Circuit’s bright-line exhaustion rule. The Supreme

Court granted certiorari in Jones and Williams on March 6, 2006; both cases were appealed from

the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. 

Case 2:00-cv-00302-JKS-JFM Document 241 Filed 04/21/06 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

2

On February 14, 2000, plaintiff filed this complaint, alleging, inter alia, claims of

excessive force and failure to protect in violation of his constitutional rights. By order filed

March 26, 2003, the district court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the entire case based on

plaintiff’s alleged failure to exhaust all of his claims, but dismissed plaintiff’s unexhausted

claims.

A district court has discretion to stay proceedings before it. Landis v. North

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “Only in rare circumstances will a litigant in one cause

be compelled to stand aside while a litigant in another settles the rule of law that will define the

rights of both.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has

recounted the factors used to evaluate whether application of a stay is warranted:

Where it is proposed that a pending proceeding be stayed, the

competing interests which will be affected by the granting or

refusal to grant a stay must be weighed. Among those competing

interests are the possible damage which may result from the

granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may

suffer in being required to go forward, and 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.

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Despite defendants’ arguments to the contrary, this court does not find that this

case presents the circumstances necessary to warrant staying this civil rights action which has

been pending over six years. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that

defendants’ March 24, 2006 motion for stay be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that

Case 2:00-cv-00302-JKS-JFM Document 241 Filed 04/21/06 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

3

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 20, 2006.

 

001;glas0302.sta

Case 2:00-cv-00302-JKS-JFM Document 241 Filed 04/21/06 Page 3 of 3