Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01095/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01095-12/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

TRACYE BENARD WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. CASTILLO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-01095-JLT-SKO (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFEFNDANT’S 

MOTION FOR A STAY OF THESE 

PROCEEDINGS

(Doc. 49)

Plaintiff Tracye Benard Washington is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendant Castillo. 

I. INTRODUCTION

On September 10, 2024, the Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 48.)

On October 28, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion for Temporary Stay Pending Settlement 

Conference Before Judge Illman U.S. District Court Northern District. (Doc. 49.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant’s Motion

Defendant seeks a temporary stay of these proceedings to allow the parties to participate 

in a settlement conference scheduled in two actions Plaintiff filed in the Northern District of 

Case 1:23-cv-01095-JLT-SKO Document 50 Filed 10/30/24 Page 1 of 4
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

California.

1

(Doc. 49.) Defense counsel received correspondence from Plaintiff on October 22, 

2024, “requesting ‘a possible settlement’” and indicating a settlement conference had been set for 

November 4, 2024, in Bernard v. Serrato, et al., case number 5:22-cv-05831-BLF and Bernard v. 

SVSP, et al., case number 5:22-cv-05832-BLF. (Doc. 49-1, ¶ 2.) Counsel states Plaintiff offered 

to settle this case, “welcoming declarant to participate at the settlement conference in the 

Northern District cases.” (Id., ¶ 3.) 

Deputy Attorney General Ryan Gille, defense counsel in the Northern District cases, 

secured a continuance of the settlement conference in those actions to November 14, 2024. (Id., ¶ 

4.) Counsel states it is her understanding that “Judge Illman has agreed to allow Defendant A. 

Castillo to participate in the settlement conference in an attempt to reach a global settlement of all 

three cases.” (Id.) Lastly, counsel states she cannot obtain a stipulation concerning a stay from 

Plaintiff due to his incarceration. (Id., ¶ 5.) 

Applicable Legal Standards and Analysis

The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 

control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North 

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “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 v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). The party seeking the stay bears the burden 

of establishing the need to stay the action. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708.

In considering a stay of proceedings, a court must the weigh competing interests that will 

be affected by the grant or refusal to grant a stay, including: (1) the possible damage which may 

result from the granting of a stay; (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being 

required to go forward; and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of simplifying or 

complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. 

CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55)).

1 Defendant’s motion references both a “stay of this matter” (Doc. 49 at 1) and a “temporary stay of the 

Scheduling Order” (id. at 2). The Court construes the motion to seek a stay of the instant action.

Case 1:23-cv-01095-JLT-SKO Document 50 Filed 10/30/24 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Here, considering the possible damage that might result from granting a stay of this 

action, the Court finds little risk. Discovery has only recently begun, and a brief stay of these 

proceedings will simply suspend the discovery period until the parties are able to participate in a 

settlement conference in the actions now pending in Northern District. If the parties do not reach 

a settlement, the Court will lift the stay of these proceedings and discovery will resume. If a 

settlement is reached, this action would be dismissed by way of stipulation to voluntary dismissal, 

and discovery deadlines would be immaterial. No party is disadvantaged by the requested stay. 

Next, considering the hardship or inequity which a party might suffer in being required to 

go forward, the Court finds no hardship or inequity to either party. Both parties are willing to 

participate in the Northern District proceedings according to defense counsel’s declaration 

supporting the instant motion. Finally, the Court finds the orderly course of justice favors a stay 

of these proceedings because the parties’ participation in a global settlement effort may result in a 

dismissal of this action. In any event, a stay of these proceedings would not complicate the issues, 

proof, or questions of law. CMAX, Inc., 300 F.2d at 268. Defendant’s requested stay of these 

proceedings is also limited to the period it will take for the parties to settle this action before 

Judge Illman in the Northern District of California on November 14, 2024. Thus, it is neither 

indefinite nor especially long. Dependable Highway Exp., Inc., 498 F.3d at 1066-67; Yong, 208 

F.3d at 1119. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. Defendant’s motion for a temporary stay (Doc. 49) is GRANTED;

2. This action is STAYED pending the parties’ participation in a settlement conference 

before Judge Illman in the Northern District of California and global settlement efforts 

involving this action and two actions pending in the Northern District of California; 

and 

//

//

//

Case 1:23-cv-01095-JLT-SKO Document 50 Filed 10/30/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

3. Within 30 days of the date of this order, Defendant SHALL file a status report setting 

forth the outcome of the November 14, 2024, settlement conference proceedings and 

the parties’ future expectations. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01095-JLT-SKO Document 50 Filed 10/30/24 Page 4 of 4