Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00423/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00423-16/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD ASHKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00423-ADA-EPG (PC)

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN 

SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

STAY OF CASE

(ECF No. 89)

Todd Ashker (“Plaintiff”) is a state inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to temporarily 

stay this case pending resolution of related claim(s) in Ashker v. Newsom (“Ashker I”), N.D. CA, 

Case No. 4:09-05796. (ECF No. 85). On September 6, 2022, the magistrate judge in Ashker I

issued a ruling resolving the motions Plaintiff identified as the reason to stay the case. Ashker I, 

ECF No. 1695. On October 3, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion, in part because the 

magistrate judge’s ruling Ashker I resolved the motions Plaintiff identified as a reason to stay the 

case and Plaintiff did not ask that the case be stayed pending resolution of motion(s) for 

reconsideration and potential appeals. (ECF No. 88). On that same day, Plaintiff filed a reply in 

support of his motion. (ECF No. 89). In his reply, Plaintiff states that his attorneys in Ashker I

will seek de novo review of the magistrate judge’s ruling, and he asks, for the first time, that the 

case be stayed pending this review. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff alleges that, based on his experience, this 

review will likely take three to five months.

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 92 Filed 10/05/22 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

Plaintiff’s motion to stay has already been denied. Moreover, Plaintiff asks for different 

relief based on new facts in his reply. The Court need not consider Plaintiff’s new arguments. 

See, e.g., Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The district court need not 

consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.”).

In any event, the Court believes its prior ruling was correct even after review of Plaintiff’s 

arguments in his reply.

Accordingly, the Court will take no further action on Plaintiff’s reply. The case will 

proceed according to the schedule issued in document 90.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2022 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00423-NODJ-EPG Document 92 Filed 10/05/22 Page 2 of 2