Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00196/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00196-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER JOHN WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

TUOLOMNE COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00196-KES-SKO (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 

SHOULD NOT BE STAYED

(Doc. 61)

Plaintiff Christopher John Wilson, a state prisoner and previous county detainee, is 

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. This case proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and failure to 

protect claims against Defendant Son and Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against 

Defendant Teague.

I. INTRODUCTION

On November 19, 2024, Defendant Son filed a Notice of Stay. (Doc. 61.) The notice 

concerns bankruptcy proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District 

of Texas, Houston Division, regarding Wellpath Holdings, Inc. and some of its debtor affiliates. 

That court issued an order (referred to as the “PC Stay Order”) on November 14, 2024, imposing 

a stay on litigation involving Wellpath Holdings, Inc. or its debtor affiliates, including Defendant 

Son’s employer, Wellpath CFMG, Inc. The PC Stay Order cites to section 362 of Title 11 of the 

Case 1:21-cv-00196-KES-SKO Document 64 Filed 12/10/24 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

United States Bankruptcy Code. Defendant Son asserts that “[a]s a result of the extension of the 

automatic stay to the Defendant, all parties are stayed from any further continuation of these 

proceedings until such time as the Bankruptcy Court may order otherwise.” 

On December 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion for Defendants To Pay all 

Debt, Honor, Satisfy, Obligations.” (Doc. 62.) Regarding Defendant Son’s notice, Plaintiff asks 

what the notice means in layman’s terms and whether he is “going to get what [he] asked for.” He 

states it is not his “fault that the Defendants went bankrupt” and contends “defendants are 

obligated to pay [him] or put a lien on all Defendants property assets, and such, till they pay in 

full upon debt, satisfy all obligations of the court action and proceedings.”

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff is advised Defendant Son’s Notice of Stay filed November 19, 2024, seeks to 

operate as a stay or “hold” of these proceedings until further order of the bankruptcy court.1

To the extent Plaintiff asserts any Defendant in this action is obligated “to pay” him, he is 

mistaken. This Court has not issued any ruling awarding damages to Plaintiff from either 

Defendant Son or Defendant Teague. While Plaintiff has alleged he is entitled to damages, those 

allegations have not been proven. This action has not yet moved into the discovery phrase and 

any merits-based decision regarding Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants would not occur until 

discovery has been completed. In any event, this Court is not persuaded Defendant Son’s notice 

requires it to stay these proceedings in their entirety. 

In this circuit, section 362(a) does not empower bankruptcy courts to stay proceedings 

against non-debtor defendants, like Defendant Teague. See In re Miller, 262 B.R. 499, 503-04 & 

n.6 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2001); In re Silverman, 616 F.3d 1001, 1005 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that 

non-bankruptcy courts should “treat the BAP’s decisions as persuasive authority given its special 

expertise in bankruptcy issues and to promote uniformity of bankruptcy law throughout the Ninth 

1 Section 362(a)(1) stays the “commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of 

process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could 

have been commenced before the commencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). Pursuant to 11 

U.S.C. § 362(a) all actions against a defendant who has filed a bankruptcy petition are automatically 

stayed once the petition is filed. Sternberg v. Johnston, 559 F.3d 937, 943 (9th Cir. 2010).

Case 1:21-cv-00196-KES-SKO Document 64 Filed 12/10/24 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

Circuit”); see also Acosta v. Valley Garlic, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-01156-AWI-EPG, 2017 WL 

3641761, at *1, n.1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2017), on reconsideration, No. 1:16-cv-01156-AWI-EPG, 

2018 WL 288017 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2018) (citing In re Miller and declining to stay proceedings 

against non-debtor defendants). Because the Court is persuaded by In re Miller, it declines to stay 

the case against the non-debtor Defendant Officer Teague pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

District courts have the inherent power to stay a lawsuit. Landis v. North American Co., 

299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). If an independent and related case is pending, in certain 

circumstances federal courts may stay the instant suit while the independent proceeding moves 

forward. Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 

2007); Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). 

To determine whether a Landis stay is appropriate, courts weigh the following competing 

interests: (1) whether there is a fair possibility that a stay will cause damage; (2) whether a party 

may suffer hardship or inequity if a stay is not imposed; and (3) whether a stay will contribute to 

the orderly course of justice. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 

Additionally, a Landis stay (4) cannot be imposed only for judicial economy and (5) cannot be 

indefinite and result in undue delay. Dependable Highway Exp., Inc., 498 F.3d at 1066-67. A stay 

may be the most efficient and fairest course when there are “independent proceedings which bear 

upon the case.” Leyva, 593 F.2d at 863. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

In light of the pending bankruptcy proceedings, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Within 21 days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL show cause in 

writing why the entire action should not be stayed until the bankruptcy proceeding in 

the related case is resolved. Plaintiff shall address the five Landis factors identified 

above to the best of his ability; and

//

//

//

//

Case 1:21-cv-00196-KES-SKO Document 64 Filed 12/10/24 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

2. Within 21 days of the date of service of this order, Defendant Teague SHALL file 

written notice advising the Court of his position regarding a stay of these proceedings 

pursuant to Landis. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00196-KES-SKO Document 64 Filed 12/10/24 Page 4 of 4