Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00698/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00698-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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 Court notes that it incorrectly referred to Plaintiff as a state prisoner in its prior Order and 1

incorrectly described this case as one filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a federal prisoner

and the instant action is a Bivens action. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEENAN HURT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DINNIS SMITH, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-698-LJO-MJS (PC)

O RDE R DE NYING MOTION TO

RECONSIDER (ECF NO. 35)

CLERK IS DIRECTED TO SEND PLAINTIFF

A COPY OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS (ECF No. 25)

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO

DISMISS IS DUE BY OCTOBER 31, 2010

Plaintiff Keenan Hurt (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this Bivens action. On June 14, 2010, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to 1

stay these proceedings and ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

by July 15, 2010. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 35]

asking the Court to reconsider its denial of his request to stay the action. 

“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, 707 (1997) (citing Landis

v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “The proponent of the stay bears the

burden of establishing its need.” Id. at 706. The Court considers the following factors

when ruling on a request to stay proceedings: (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 the

Case 1:09-cv-00698-MJS Document 36 Filed 07/13/10 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

-2-

simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected

to result from a stay. Filtrol Corp. V. Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242, 244 (9th Cir. 1972) (quoting

CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). In considering a stay order, the

court should “balance the length of any stay against the strength of the justification given

for it.” Young v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Plaintiff originally requested a stay because he had been temporarily transferred to

a different facility to testify on behalf of the Government in a pending trial. In denying

Plaintiff’s request to stay, the Court noted that the trial had since ended and, therefore, a

stay was unnecessary. Plaintiff now alleges that although the trial is over, he has not yet

been returned to his home penitentiary and still does not have access to his legal papers,

including the pending motion to dismiss. Plaintiff asks the Court to stay this action until he

is returned to his home facility. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that a stay of this

action is necessary. He is currently housed in a federal penitentiary where he presumably

has access to a law library. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider [ECF No. 35] is

DENIED. However, given Plaintiff’s asserted inability to bring his legal papers with him to

his current facility, the Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss [ECF No. 25]. Additionally, the Court will extend until October 31, 2010, Plaintiff’s

deadline to file his response to the Motion to Dismiss. This Order does not foreclose

Plaintiff requesting additional time to adequately respond to the pending Motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00698-MJS Document 36 Filed 07/13/10 Page 2 of 2