(PC) Lipsey v. Norum ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, Jr., No. 2:18-cv-0362 KJM DB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 Dr. NORUM, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff challenges the operation of the Guard One Security Check 18 system, implemented in specific units in California’s prisons as a suicide prevention measure, 19 claiming defendants’ use of the Guard One system has caused him to suffer sleep deprivation in 20 violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. 21 Defendants moved to stay these proceedings pending the resolution of an appeal pending 22 before the Ninth Circuit from an order issued in Rico v. Ducart, 2:17-cv-1402 KJM DB P, which 23 also involves a challenge to the use of Guard One. In Rico, defendants have appealed the court’s 24 denial of qualified immunity to some defendants. 25 On November 20, 2020, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order denying 26 qualified immunity on Rico’s Eighth Amendment claim and remanded the case for entry of an 27 order of dismissal granting qualified immunity as to all remaining defendants. See Rico v. 28 Ducart, 980 F.3d 1292 (9th Cir. 2020). On January 8, 2021, plaintiff-appellee petitioned the 1 || Circuit for rehearing en banc. On March 2, 2021, the Circuit granted defendants-appellants’ 2 || second motion for an extension of time to file a response to plaintiff-appellee’s motion for 3 || rehearing en banc. Defendants-appellants’ new deadline to file a response is April 7, 2021. 4 This court has inherent authority to stay proceedings in pending cases as part of its 5 || inherent authority “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time 6 | and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 7 || 254 (1936). To determine the propriety of a stay, the court must “weigh competing interests and 8 || maintain an even balance.” /d. at 255. Here, the majority panel opinion in Rico v. Beard, if it 9 || becomes final, would require the court to grant qualified immunity to all defendants in this action 10 || and dismiss the case. See Rico v. Ducart, No. 19-15541, slip op. at 4-21. On the other hand, the 11 | dissenting opinion suggests the possibility of an alternative disposition that could require this 12 || court to permit plaintiff to proceed further with his claim against at least one or more of the 13 || named defendants. See id. slip op. at 22-32. For this reason, disposition of Rico’s motion for 14 || rehearing en banc will have a material impact on the final resolution of this action. Accordingly, 15 | in the interests of judicial economy and the fair administration of justice, this action will be stayed 16 || pending resolution of the plaintiff-appellee’s motion for rehearing en banc in Rico v. Ducart, No. 17 | 19-15541. The court will entertain a request to stay these proceedings further if Rico’s motion for 18 || rehearing en banc is granted. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 (1) This action is stayed pending resolution of the motion for rehearing en bane in Rico v. 21 || Ducart, No. 19-15541; 22 (2) The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively close this case; 23 (3) Either party may file, as appropriate, a motion to reopen this action, to dismiss this 24 || action, or to extend the stay within thirty days of the resolution of motion for rehearing en banc 25 | Rico v. Beard; and 26 (4) This action will remain stayed unless a timely motion is filed in accordance with this 27 | order. 28 | DATED: March 31, 2021. l | ( □□□ CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE