Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02188/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02188-11/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

EDWARD THOMAS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S–08-2188-SPG (PC)

vs.

T. FELKER, et al., ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST

FOR CLARIFICATION AND DENYING 

Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A STAY

 /

I. Defendants’ Motion

On February 19, 2010, Defendants filed a motion requesting clarification that there were

no surviving due process claims against certain Defendants and requesting that Defendant Plainer

not be required to file a responsive pleading until Plaintiff amends his complaint or his leave to

amend expires. Clerk’s Record, Docket No. 67 ("Doc." 67.). Plaintiff filed no response to this

motion. 

A. Due Process Claims

Plaintiff’s original complaint alleged due process claims arising from the administrative

grievance process. (Doc. 1). However, this court’s order of January 25, 2010, dismissed those

claims with prejudice. (Doc. 66). On June 10, 2009, this court ordered that Plaintiff be allowed

Case 2:08-cv-02188-SPG Document 72 Filed 03/18/10 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

to amend his complaint to add due process claims arising from his disciplinary hearings against

Defendants Plainer, Lawry, Nelson, Cobb, Lowther, and Zinn. (Doc. 46.) The amendment did

not add disciplinary due process claims against Defendants Perez, Vaderville, Runnels, Audette,

Ingwerson, Ginder, Albonico, Speers, Beutler, Neimann, Betti, Wright, Medina, Clark, Shaw,

Cottrell, Cochrane, or White. Consequently, Plaintiff alleges no surviving due process claims

against those Defendants. 

B. Defendant Plainer

This court’s order of January 25, 2010, dismissed Plaintiff’s state-law claims with 60

days’ leave to amend. (Doc. 66.) Defendants request that Defendant Plainer not be required to

file a responsive pleading until Plaintiff either amends his complaint or his leave to amend

expires. This request is reasonable, and this court grants it.

II. Plaintiff’s Motion

On February 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a 180-day stay of the

proceedings. (Doc. 69.) Plaintiff states that he is being treated for mental illness and needs time

to obtain pro bono counsel. On February 24, 2010, Defendants filed a response opposing a stay. 

(Doc. 70.) Plaintiff filed no reply. 

Plaintiff’s statement of reasons for a stay is unsworn and provides no documentation

supporting his claim that his mental illness and medication make him unable to proceed promptly

in this matter. In the absence of evidence, this court denies the motion. Plaintiff may file a new

motion with evidence if he chooses. In addition, this court’s order of January 25, 2010, gave

Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint as to certain claims. This court will grant Plaintiff more

time to make those amendments. 

III. Conclusion and Order

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby:

1. GRANTS Defendants’ request for clarification and states that Plaintiff’s

complaint alleges no surviving due process claims against Defendants Perez, Vaderville,

Case 2:08-cv-02188-SPG Document 72 Filed 03/18/10 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

Runnels, Audette, Ingwerson, Ginder, Albonico, Speers, Beutler, Neimann, Betti, Wright,

Medina, Clark, Shaw, Cottrell, Cochrane, or White;

2. GRANTS Defendants’ request that Defendant Plainer not be required to file a

responsive pleading until Plaintiff amends his complaint or his leave to do so expires;

3. DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a stay of the proceedings; and

4. GRANTS Plaintiff an extension of leave to amend his complaint until May 17,

2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 17, 2010

 /s/ Susan P. Graber 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-02188-SPG Document 72 Filed 03/18/10 Page 3 of 3