Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00281/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00281-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANETRA A. JOHNSON, 1:09cv0281 LJO DLB

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

vs. MOTION TO STAY ACTION

(Document 30)

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE,

et al.,

Defendants.

/

Plaintiff Janetra A. Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

civil rights action filed on February 13, 2009.

On January 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed a document entitled, “Plaintiff’s Request the Courts to

Pause Legal Proceeding For Good Cause without Prejudice.” While it is somewhat unclear, Plaintiff

seems to be requesting that the Court stay the proceedings and review its prior order denying

Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel.

Plaintiff requests that the Court stay the action to ensure that the parties “comply with legal

standards,” “minimize one-sided court actions” and evaluate the factors used to decide Plaintiff’s

motion for appointment of counsel and Defendant’s request for an ex-parte request for an extension

of time.

Plaintiff presents no reasons to stay this action. Defendants have been served and an answer

is due by February 28, 2010. Insofar as Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in denying her request

1

Case 1:09-cv-00281-LJO-SAB Document 32 Filed 01/25/10 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

for counsel because it previously found her case suitable for service, her argument is incorrect. The

standards for screening a pro se compliant are much less stringent than those involved in deciding a

motion for counsel. Plaintiff presents the Court with no new facts that would change its prior

decision to deny counsel.

Plaintiff also requests that the Court grant her access to the Electronic Case Filing system. In

pro se cases, access is granted sparingly and only upon a showing that access is necessary to allow the

plaintiff to litigate the action. Plaintiff has not made such a showing and her request is denied.

For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to stay the action is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00281-LJO-SAB Document 32 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 2