(PC) Lewis v. Gipson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARONTA TYRONE LEWIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00574-JLT-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STAY 13 v. (Doc. Nos. 151, 158) 14 S. SHERMAN, S. SMITH, FNU SMITH, FNU JOHNSON, FNU PIPER, NIKKI 15 JOHNSON, J. JIMENEZ, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s pleading titled “motion to order investigatory stay 19 for retaliatory interference by Defendant Lara cohorts in 2:21-cv-00932-JAM-EFB at KVSP” 20 filed on June 27, 2022. (Doc. No. 151). Plaintiff also filed a second pleading titled “motion to 21 stay” on August 4, 2022. (Doc. No. 158). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the 22 motions. 23 Plaintiff’s first pleading references a 404-page amended complaint that the Clerk 24 presumably returned because it was out of order. (Doc. No. 151). Plaintiff claims the pages of 25 the amended complaint were mixed up by correctional staff and believes body camera evidence 26 would verify whether the top page was on top and visible when he gave the document to prison 27 officials for mailing. (Id. at 1). Plaintiff states that “if [the] Court has not yet received [the 28 amended complaint], its [sic] retaliatory interference by Sgt. Lara – cohorts.” (Id. at 2). Plaintiff 1 claims he needs an “investigatory stay” to presumably investigate whether his 404-page amended 2 complaint was mailed. Plaintiff’s second motion to stay repeats the facts set forth in the first 3 pleading and attaches his declaration. (Doc. No. 158 at 1-15). Plaintiff again seeks a stay of the 4 proceedings to investigate what happened to the amended complaint. (Id. at 2). 5 A district court has “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 6 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citing Landis v. North 7 American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, (1936)). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the 8 power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy 9 of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254, 57 S.Ct. 163. 10 However, “[t]he proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton, 520 U.S. 11 at 708; Irvin v. Yates, 783 F. App’x 695, 696 (9th Cir. 2019)(not abuse of discretion to deny stay 12 wen plaintiff provides not justification for a stay). 13 Plaintiff’s justification for the stay is unwarranted. As noted by separate order, Plaintiff’s 14 amended complaint was lodged on the Court’s docket on July 8, 2022. (Doc. No. 152). The 15 Court directed Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s construed motion for leave to file an amended 16 complaint in a separate order issued this same day. The Court notes Plaintiff attached a letter on 17 the Clerk of Court’s letterhead stating that a document was returned to him because it was 18 missing the case number on the first page. (See Doc. No. 154 at 4-5). However, the letter from 19 the Clerk of Court does not indicate whether it was Plaintiff’s 404-page amended complaint or 20 another document. (Id.). The Court notes Plaintiff references a different case number in his 21 motion, not the instant case number, and takes judicial notice that Plaintiff currently has four 22 other actions in addition to the instant action pending before this Court.1 The Court finds no 23 grounds to warrant a stay of this action in order that Plaintiff undertake an investigation of the 24 circumstances surrounding the alleged return of his 404-page amended complaint. At this stage 25 of the proceedings, whether Plaintiff previously submitted an amended complaint which was 26 returned to him is of limited relevance, if any, since the Court eventually received and docketed 27 1 https://caed-ecf.sso.dcn/cgi-bin/iquery.pl?105547816773184-L_1_1-0-22518103-pty- 28 pla%20%20%20%20%20%20%20-plaintiff. 1 | Plaintiff’s 404-page amended complaint. 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 3 Plaintiff's motions to stay (Doc. Nos. 151, 158) are DENIED. 4 > | Dated: _ August 22, 2022 law □□□ foareA Zacks 6 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA , UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28