Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05771/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05771-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Hawkins
Plaintiff
USA
Defendant

Document Text:

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

CHARLES HAWKINS,

 

Plaintiff,

 

 v.

 

USA, 

 

Defendants.

____________________________________/

CIV F 04-5771 OWW SMS P 

 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR STAY

OF CASE (Doc. 45 )

Charles Hawkins (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil action. 

On December 23, 2005, Plaintiff field a Second Amended Complaint. Defendants filed an

Answer on January 11, 2006. Plaintiff moved to stay the case on August 1, 2006, citing a pending

“brain operation” as the reason for the stay. Defendant’s filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to the

Motion on August 4, 2006. 

The Supreme Court of the United States has indicated clearly that “the power to stay

proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes

on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can

best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interest and maintain

an even balance.” Landis v. North America Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, 57 S.Ct. 163, 166 (1936.) 

“The proponent of the stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S.

Case 1:04-cv-05771-GMS Document 47 Filed 08/23/06 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

681, 706, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 1650 (1997). Thus, the moving party “must make out a clear case of

hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair possibility that the stay for

which he prays will work damage to someone else.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 355, 57 S.Ct. at 166. 

In this case, Plaintiff’s justification for the stay is that he is in need of a brain surgery. 

However, Plaintiff has no idea when the surgery will be scheduled or when he will actually leave his

facility to go to the hospital for the surgery. Although Plaintiff may have good cause to stay this

action, the surgery that is to take place has yet to be scheduled. As such, Plaintiff’s request is that

the Court grant a stay immediately even though he may not be scheduled for such a surgery for some

time. Further, notwithstanding Defendant’s non-opposition, Plaintiff proposes no end for the stay. 

While the Court can grant a stay of the case, it cannot do so for an indefinite period. When Plaintiff

has more definite information as to the date of his surgical procedures, he may renew his motion for

a stay. However, as the request is vague and speculative as to the duration, the request for a stay is

DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05771-GMS Document 47 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 2