(PC) Sandoval v. Diaz ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIO SANDOVAL, Case No. 1:20-cv-01314-NONE-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 13 v. (ECF No. 28) 14 DIAZ, et al., ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR 15 Defendants. PLAINTIFF TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Plaintiff Julio Sandoval (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On March 19, 2021, the Court issued findings and recommendations regarding dismissal 21 of this action for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 26.) Amended findings and recommendations 22 were issued on March 22, 2021. (ECF No. 27.) In the amended findings and recommendations, 23 Plaintiff was directed to file any objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen 24 days. (Id. at 13.) 25 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for a stay of proceedings, filed April 7, 26 2021. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff requests sixty days to file his objections to the findings and 27 recommendations, as he just received the findings and recommendations on April 2, 2021, and his 28 access to the law library is very limited. Plaintiff requests sixty days to properly respond, because 1 he needs to obtain forms and cases and have enough time to review and research material. 2 Plaintiff states he is also dealing with a recent medical issue, and his legal mail is being delivered 3 about ten days later. (Id.) 4 The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 5 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North 6 American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” 7 Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066–67 (9th Cir. 2007). 8 If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it. 9 Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). The party seeking the stay bears the burden 10 of establishing the need to stay the action. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708. 11 Here, Plaintiff has not carried his burden of establishing the need to stay this action. 12 However, the Court finds it appropriate to grant an extension of time for Plaintiff to prepare and 13 file his objections to the findings and recommendations. The Court finds that in this instance, an 14 extension of thirty (30) days is appropriate. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff’s motion for stay of proceedings, (ECF No. 28), is DENIED; and 17 2. Plaintiff shall file his objections to the March 22, 2021 amended findings and 18 recommendations within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: April 8, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28