(PC) Rhodes v. Ruiz ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PERCY LEE RHODES, Case No. 1:21-cv-00942-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Doc. 42) 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 14 JOSEPH RUIZ, et al., MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FOR 15 Defendants. 90 DAYS (Doc. 39) 16 17 Plaintiff Percy Lee Rhodes is a proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Order and Motion to Move the 21 Court for a Stay of 90 Days and Change of Address.” (See Doc. 39.) 22 On January 8, 2024, the Court issued its Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) Why Sanctions 23 Should Not Be Imposed for Defendants’ Failure to File an Opposition or Statement of Non- 24 Opposition (Doc. 42) to Plaintiff’s pending motion. That same date, Defendants filed a Statement 25 of Non-Opposition. (Doc. 43.) 26 II. DISCUSSION 27 Plaintiff seeks a 90-day stay of this action, stating that on November 21, 2023, he “made a 911 call in fear for his safety while suffering from symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder 1 causing a medical hospital stay, treatment and mental health services.” (Doc. 39 at 2.) Those 2 events also effect his present confinement.1 (Id.) Plaintiff essentially requests this action be stayed 3 in light of his present health and well-being. (Id.) 4 Defendants do not oppose a 90-day stay of these proceedings. (Doc. 42.) Defendants state 5 discovery has not yet been completed and no trial date has been set. (Id. at 2.) They state they “do 6 not anticipate that a 90-day stay of the proceedings will prejudice either party and for that reason 7 do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion.” (Id.) Defendants ask the Court to extend the deadlines imposed 8 in the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order by approximately 90 days from the date of any 9 stay. (Id.) 10 The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 11 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North 12 American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). A stay is discretionary and the “party requesting a stay 13 bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken v. 14 Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433–34 (2009). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” 15 Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066–67 (9th Cir. 2007). 16 Here, the Court finds good cause in Plaintiff’s representations in support of the requested 17 stay and Defendants’ non-opposition and will grant Plaintiff’s request for a 90-day stay of these 18 proceedings. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 706; Dependable Highway Exp., Inc., 498 F.3d at 1066-67. 19 Further, the Court will modify the relevant deadlines originally imposed in its Discovery and 20 Scheduling Order issued October 3, 2023. 21 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. The OSC issued January 8, 2024 (Doc. 42) is DISCHARGED; and 24 2. Plaintiff’s motion filed December 15, 2023 (Doc. 39) is GRANTED; 25 3. This action is STAYED for 90 days from the date of service of this order; and 26 4. The Discovery and Scheduling Order is MODIFIED as follows: 27 1 Prior to his current incarceration at the Fresno County Jail, Plaintiff’s address of record was a residential 1 a. The exhaustion motion filing deadline is extended from February 3, 2024 to 2 May 3, 2024; 3 b. The discovery deadline is extended from June 3, 2024 to September 1, 2024; 4 and 5 c. The dispositive motion deadline is extended from August 12, 2024 to 6 November 10, 2024. 7 | ITIS ORDERED. Dated: _ January 9, 2024 | Ww VL D R~ 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28