(PC) Chavez v. Doe 1 ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GILBERTO CHAVEZ, 1:18-cv-01534-AWI-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY 13 (ECF No. 31.) v. 14 ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND J. DOE #1, et al., RECOMMENDATIONS 15 (ECF No. 30.) Defendants. 16 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 17 SIXTY-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE THIRD 18 AMENDED COMPLAINT 19 20 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Gilberto Chavez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 23 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 24 On April 15, 2020, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff, within 30 days, to either 25 file a Third Amended Complaint, or notify the court that he is willing to proceed only with the 26 Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against defendant Celina Salinas found 27 cognizable by the court. (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff requested and was granted a thirty-day 28 extension of time to comply with the court’s order. (ECF Nos. 28, 29.) 1 The thirty-day extension of time expired and Plaintiff did not file a Third Amended 2 Complaint. On June 9, 2020, the court issued findings and recommendations, recommending 3 that this case be dismissed, without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s 4 order. (ECF No. 30.) 5 On June 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for stay. (ECF No. 31.) 6 II. MOTION FOR STAY 7 The court has inherent authority to manage the cases before it. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 8 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power 9 inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of 10 time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the 11 exercise of judgment which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”) 12 Stays of proceedings in federal court, including stays of discovery, are committed to the 13 discretion of the trial court. See, e.g., Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987). This 14 court does not lightly stay litigation, due to the possibility of prejudice to defendants. 15 Plaintiff requests a stay of the proceedings in this case for at least six months while he 16 seeks counsel to represent him. He asserts that due to the Corona Virus he has not been able to 17 obtain counsel. Plaintiff also asserts that he is a native Spanish speaker, does not understand how 18 to file the paperwork for this case, and has been given bad advice. Plaintiff requests a stay of six 19 months, or until he is able to obtain an attorney. 20 The court finds good cause to allow Plaintiff time to obtain an attorney, but a stay of the 21 case is not his only remedy. Instead, the court shall vacate the pending findings and 22 recommendations and grant Plaintiff a sixty-day extension of time to file a Third Amended 23 Complaint. If Plaintiff needs further extension of time thereafter, he should file a motion before 24 the sixty days has expired. 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. Plaintiff’s motion for stay, filed on June 29, 2020, is DENIED; 28 2. The findings and recommendations issued on June 29, 2020, are VACATED; 1 3. Plaintiff is GRANTED sixty days from the date of service of this order in which 2 to file his Third Amended Complaint, pursuant to the court’s order of April 15, 3 2020; 4 4. Any further motions for extension of time must be filed before the expiration of 5 the new deadline; and 6 5. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that 7 this case be dismissed. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: July 13, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28