Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02024/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02024-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHAUNCEY M. MAHAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUAN PEREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02024-JST 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 

APPLICATION FOR STAY

Re: ECF No. 53

Before the Court is Defendant Juan Perez’s Application for a Stay of All Dates. ECF No. 

53. The application is opposed by Plaintiff. The Court will grant the application.

“[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). Whether to stay 

proceedings is entrusted to the discretion of the district court. See id. at 254–55. A district court 

must weigh various competing interests, including the possible damage which may result from 

granting a stay, the hardship a party may suffer if the case is allowed 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).

Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, does not identify particular causes of action, but appears 

to allege that multiple defendants have conspired to falsely arrest him, illegally detain him, and 

seize his property. See ECF No. 3. Perez contends that the property at issue in this case was also 

the subject of claims brought in the Southern District of New York (“S.D.N.Y.”), and that the 

court in S.D.N.Y. is imminently holding a hearing to determine the ownership and disposition of 

the property. ECF No. 53 at 2. As a result, Perez argues that the outcome of the hearing in 

Case 3:16-cv-02024-JST Document 60 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

S.D.N.Y. may effectively moot the issues before this Court as to Perez. Id. at 5. A stay, Perez 

continues, would remove the need for potentially unnecessary proceedings in this court, and would 

impose no prejudice since Plaintiff only seeks monetary relief based on events that took place 

years prior to this action’s commencement. Id. at 5-6.

Plaintiff responds by contending that the court in S.D.N.Y. lacks jurisdiction to conduct its 

hearing, and that his legal claims alleged in this case are distinct from the claims alleged in his 

S.D.N.Y. case. ECF No. 55 at 1-2. The Court takes no position on whether these claims are 

accurate. Plaintiff has not denied that the outcome of the S.D.N.Y. hearing may likely resolve 

some of the issues raised in this case through resolving the question of who owns the property in 

question. Nor has Plaintiff identified any prejudice that would result from a stay.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that a stay of proceedings in this case is appropriate. It 

therefore orders as follows:

(1) All proceedings in this case are hereby stayed until 30 days after the S.D.N.Y. has 

entered final judgment in regards to the issues discussed in its June 29, 2016 hearing. 

(2) Within ten days after the S.D.N.Y. has entered final judgment, Defendant Perez shall 

notify this Court of the outcome.

(3) Within fifteen days after Perez has filed his notification, the parties shall file, jointly or 

separately, a proposed schedule for resuming proceedings in this case.

(4) A Case Management Conference is scheduled for October 5, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. Either 

party may move the Court for a continuance of this CMC based on the status of the S.D.N.Y 

proceedings by filing a motion at least seven days before the CMC. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02024-JST Document 60 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 2