(PC) Evans v. Carlock ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD ANTHONY EVANS, No. 2:19-cv-0110-KJM-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 LISA CARLOCK, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending are the court’s findings and recommendations that this action be 19 dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable section 1983 claim. ECF No. 50. 20 Plaintiff has received numerous extensions and, as of now, has not yet submitted objections or 21 reached the final deadline for doing so. He has, however, filed a motion to stay this action. ECF 22 No. 57. That motion should be denied. 23 The logic of the motion to stay is somewhat difficult to follow, but plaintiff appears to be 24 arguing that: (1) he intends to file a habeas action in this district which invokes the same 25 allegations which form the basis of this section 1983 action (id. at 1, 4); and (2) staying this 26 action will consequently “save a substantial amount of time and money” both for the plaintiff and 27 the district. Id. at 4. In weighing whether to stay a proceeding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 28 Ninth Circuit has held that a district court should weigh competing interests. See Cmax, Inc. v. wOAOe 2 LUV VV SEUNG I MUO VO Pa vere PAY eI 1 | Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (‘Where it is proposed that a pending proceeding be 2 || stayed, the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay 3 || must be weighed. Among these competing interests are the possible damage which may result 4 | from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to 5 | go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or 6 || complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a 7 || stay.”). Here, plaintiff has failed to show that any substantial interest favors staying this action. 8 || First (and as noted supra), the court has already recommended that the operative complaint be 9 | dismissed. ECF No. 50. In light of that recommendation, it makes little sense to stay this action. 10 | Second, plaintiff has not adequately explained how staying this action would conserve judicial 11 || resources or simplify any potential issues, proof, or questions of law. 12 In light of the foregoing, the court declines to recommend that this action be stayed. If 13 | plaintiff intends to file a separate habeas action in this district, he is free to do so. The court can 14 | discern no obvious benefit, however, to staying this action while that potential habeas action runs 15 || its course. 16 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion to stay (ECF No. 57) be 17 | DENIED. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 20 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 21 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 22 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 23 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 24 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 | DATED: September 2, 2020. 26 tid, PDEA EDMUND F. BRENNAN 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28