Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00223/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00223-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

RUBEN CHAVARRIA, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00223-LJO-SAB

ORDER DENYING MOTION BY 

STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION AND 

REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A 

RESPONSIVE PLEADING

(ECF No. 34)

On September 22, 2015, an order issued lifting the stay of this action and requiring 

Defendants to file a pleading responsive to the complaint within twenty days. (ECF No. 30.) 

Thereafter, the parties filed a stipulation to extend time for Defendants to file an answer to the 

complaint which was granted. (ECF Nos. 32, 33.) On October 2, 2015, the parties filed a motion 

by stipulation to stay the proceedings in this action until the pleadings in the related cases of 

Jackson, et al. v. Brown, et al., No. 1:13-cv-01055-LJO-SAB, and Smith, et al. v. 

Schwarzenegger, et al., No. 1:14-cv-0060-LJO-SAB, are finalized. 

On October 16, 2015 the Court conducted a status conference in several of these related 

cases. During the October 16, 2015 conference, the parties discussed the necessity for a stay and 

the Court’s concern that these actions not stagnant unnecessarily on the Court’s docket. 

Case 1:15-cv-00223-LJO-SAB Document 35 Filed 10/19/15 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

Counsel for Plaintiffs are attempting to resolve how this action will proceed based on the 

decisions in Jackson and Smith finding that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the 

Eighth Amendment claims. The parties are discussing how the qualified immunity decision will 

impact the additional claims that are raised in these actions. Counsel for the parties agreed at the 

October 16, 2015 hearing that the deadline to file a responsive document in these related cases 

shall be extended to December 11, 2015 to allow the parties an opportunity to consider their 

options due to the qualified immunity findings. Therefore, the stipulation to stay the proceedings 

at this time is denied without prejudice. The Court finds no need for a status conference to be set 

at this time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motion by stipulation to stay this action is DENIED without prejudice; and

2. Defendants shall file a pleading responsive to the first amended complaint on or 

before December 11, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 19, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00223-LJO-SAB Document 35 Filed 10/19/15 Page 2 of 2