Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00392-22/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLIN M. RANDOLPH,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. NIX, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO STAY 

PROCEEDINGS ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 95)

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

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 

Defendant Akano on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim. (ECF No. 

19.)

The dispositive motion deadline in this action expired on April 20, 2015. (ECF No. 

42.) On February 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment or summary 

adjudication. (ECF No. 95.) On February 10, 2016, Plaintiff requested that proceedings 

on this motion be stayed pending the Court’s appointment of volunteer counsel.1 Absent 

Plaintiff’s untimely motion for summary judgment, the matter otherwise is ready to be set

 

1

At the time of Plaintiff’s request, the Court had arranged for Plaintiff to speak by phone with potential 

volunteer counsel. (ECF No. 92.) The Court has now, simultaneously with the instant order, issued an 

order appointing counsel.

Case 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS Document 100 Filed 02/17/16 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

for trial.

Plaintiff’s request to stay will be denied. Counsel has been appointed for the 

purpose of assisting Plaintiff with preparation for trial and trial of this matter. Although 

counsel may assist Plaintiff with any further briefing of the motion as provided for under 

Local Rule 230(l) and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the appointment of counsel, standing alone, 

does not provide a sufficient basis to stay proceedings in this action. See Filtrol Corp. v. 

Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242, 244 (9th Cir. 1972) (citing factors to be considered in granting a 

stay). The Court previously determined that Plaintiff is able to file necessary motions, 

respond appropriately to Defendants’ motions, articulate his claims with proper legal and 

evidentiary support, and adequately defend himself. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a 

stay is necessary. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to stay is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00392-LJO-MJS Document 100 Filed 02/17/16 Page 2 of 2