The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH, 1:19-cv-00286-NONE-GSA-PC
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR STAY
13 vs. (ECF No. 62.)
14 PARRIOT, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17
18
19 I. BACKGROUND
20 Lawrence Christopher Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
21 forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now
22 proceeds with the First Amended Complaint filed on September 10, 2020, against defendants
23 Cantu, W. Gutierrez, and Mattingly (“Defendants”) for use of excessive force in violation of the
24 Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 22.)
25 On September 15, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on
26 Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust remedies and pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994.)
27 (ECF No. 47.) On February 10, 2022, the Magistrate Judge entered findings and
28 recommendations, recommending that the motion for summary judgment be granted. (ECF No.
1 57.) Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations were due on July 4, 2022, by
2 this Court's order, but Plaintiff has not yet filed objections. (ECF No. 61.)
3 On June 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay the resolution of Defendants’ pending
4 motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 62.) Defendants have not filed an opposition to
5 Plaintiff’s motion to stay, and the time in which to do so has expired. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
6 motion for stay is now before the court. Local Rule 230(l).
7 II. MOTION FOR STAY
8 A district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to
9 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North
10 American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of
11 establishing the need to stay the action. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708. In considering an application
12 for a stay, the Court considers: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he
13 is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a
14 stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the
15 proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. Coleman v. Brown, 960 F.Supp.2d 1057
16 (E.D.Cal. 2013) (citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 173 L.Ed.2d 550
17 (2009); Humane Soc. of U.S. v. Gutierrez, 558 F.3d 896, 896 (9th Cir. 2009).
18 Discussion
19 Plaintiff seeks a stay of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment to allow him time to
20 amend his complaint in a related action, Smith v. Secretary, 2:21-cv-00519-WSB-DB, and to
21 consolidate all of his actions pending before the Court. Based upon the factors referenced above
22 the Court shall deny Plaintiff’s motion for a stay.
23 First, Plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits of this case, considering that the
24 Magistrate Judge has entered findings and recommendations to dismiss the case for failure to
25 state a claim. Second, Plaintiff has not made a showing that he will be irreparably injured absent
26 a stay. The imposition of a stay in this action does not equate to a resolution of the motion for
27 summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. However, delay of resolution of the motion for summary
28 judgment would undoubtedly be prejudicial to Defendants. Finally, the public interest lies in
1 expeditious resolution of litigation, favoring the denial of Plaintiff’s motion for stay. Yourish v.
2 California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s
3 motion for stay shall be denied.
4 III. CONCLUSION
5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for stay, filed on June
6 29, 2022, is denied.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9 Dated: July 13, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28