Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02088/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02088-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

16-cv-2088 CAB (JLB)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES AUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. WALKER et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-cv-2088 CAB (JLB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR STAY

[ECF No. 25]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion and Declaration for an Order to Stay and Abey

the Proceedings to Permit the Preparation and Filing of a Motion for Rehearing of the 

Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 25.) In his motion, Plaintiff asks the Court 

for an order staying the proceedings in this case under Rules 6(b) and 16(b)(4) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1.) As Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) and 

16(b)(4) address the procedures not for staying a proceeding but for modifying a court’s 

dates and deadlines, the Court interprets Plaintiff’s motion as a request that this case be 

stayed or, alternatively, that this case’s scheduling order be modified. 

I. Motion for Stay

“A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court.” 

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). In determining whether to 

grant a motion to stay, “the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or 

refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.” Id. at 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting CMAX, Inc. 

v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). These interests include “the possible damage 

Case 3:16-cv-02088-CAB-JLB Document 26 Filed 03/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16-cv-2088 CAB (JLB)

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

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.” Id. (quoting CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268). In addition, the 

court must “balance the length of the stay against the strength of the justification given for 

it.” Yong v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). 

“Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. 

Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066–67 (9th Cir. 2007). If a stay is especially long 

or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it. Yong, 208 F.3d at 1119. 

Here, Plaintiff requests an indefinite stay of this case while he awaits the receipt of

his medical and mental health treatment records from the prison’s medical records 

department. (ECF No. 25 at 1.) Plaintiff intends to use the records to support a motion for 

a rehearing of his motion for appointment of counsel, and he requests that the Court stay 

this action until he submits the motion and the Court has the opportunity to rule upon it.

(Id. at 2.) 

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion to stay this case, the Court concludes that 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that an indefinite stay of this action is warranted. Plaintiff 

previously filed a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 16), and that motion was 

denied for Plaintiff’s failure to show: (1) that he is unable to articulate his claims without 

the assistance of counsel in light of the complexity of the issues involved; and (2) that he 

is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims (ECF No. 22). While Plaintiff asserts in the 

instant motion that proof of his medical and mental disabilities, combined with his 

advanced age, will demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required for the appointment 

of counsel in a civil case (ECF No. 25 at 2), the Court finds that such a showing would

likely satisfy only one of the two-prongs of the “exceptional circumstances” test. To 

succeed on a motion for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff must also show that he is likely 

to succeed on the merits of his claims. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 

2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 906 (2010). As stated in the Court’s Order denying Plaintiff’s 

Case 3:16-cv-02088-CAB-JLB Document 26 Filed 03/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16-cv-2088 CAB (JLB)

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

motion for appointment of counsel, Plaintiff has offered no evidence to the effect that he 

has a likelihood of success on the merits, and at this stage, there is very little before the 

Court regarding the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No. 22.) The instant motion to stay 

this case fails to show how Plaintiff’s medical and mental health treatment records will 

demonstrate that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. 

As Plaintiff has not established that a motion for rehearing of his motion for 

appointment of counsel is likely to be successful, there is little justification to stay this case

for any length of time, much less for an indefinite period. In addition, staying the 

proceedings for even a short period would not simplify any issues or resolve any questions 

of law with respect to this case. Moreover, staying this action until Plaintiff files a motion 

for rehearing of Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel will cause damage and 

hardship to Defendants, who have an interest in moving this case forward in a timely 

manner. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to stay this case. 

II. Motion to Modify Scheduling Order

Plaintiff’s motion also seeks relief from this case’s scheduling order under Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b) and 16(b)(4). (ECF No. 25 at 1.) Rule 6(b) states that 

“[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, 

extend the time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Rule 16(b)(4) states that the dates and times set in 

the operative scheduling order will not be modified except for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b)(4). 

The Ninth Circuit has explained the “good cause” requirement as follows:

[The] “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the party 

seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule 

if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

extension. Moreover, carelessness is not compatible with a finding of 

diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief. . . . [T]he focus of the 

inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. If that 

party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal 

citations omitted). 

Case 3:16-cv-02088-CAB-JLB Document 26 Filed 03/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16-cv-2088 CAB (JLB)

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

The instant motion fails to demonstrate good cause for an indefinite extension of the

dates and deadlines set forth in the operative scheduling order. Although Plaintiff has 

provided evidence to show he is diligently pursuing medical care, Plaintiff has not shown

any exercise of diligence in attempting to meet the dates and deadlines of the scheduling 

order in this case. Over one month has passed since the denial of Plaintiff’s motion for 

appointment of counsel, and there is no indication that Plaintiff has made any progress in 

litigating this case. In addition, Plaintiff fails to provide any reason why this case cannot 

proceed in accordance with the current schedule while Plaintiff awaits copies of his medical 

and mental health treatment records from the prison’s medical department. While Plaintiff 

alleges that he suffers from anxiety and depression and that he may not be taking the correct 

medication, these ailments did not prevent Plaintiff from successfully filing the instant 

motion, which is well written, organized, and clear. Therefore, the Court sees no reason 

why Plaintiff cannot also engage in discovery at this time. Accordingly, the Court 

DENIES Plaintiff’s request to continue indefinitely the dates and deadlines set forth in the 

scheduling order.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion and Declaration for an Order to Stay 

and Abey the Proceedings to Permit the Preparation and Filing of a Motion for Rehearing 

of the Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 25) is DENIED. For purposes of 

clarification, this does not mean that Plaintiff is precluded from filing a motion for 

rehearing of his motion for appointment of counsel. If Plaintiff desires to file such a 

motion, or to file a second motion for appointment of counsel, he may do so within the 

confines of the operative scheduling order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02088-CAB-JLB Document 26 Filed 03/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4