(PC) Ashker v. Beard ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 TODD ASHKER, Case No. 1:21-cv-00423-ADA-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 12 v. STAY OF CASE 13 C. PFEIFFER, et al., (ECF No. 89) 14 Defendants. 15 16 Todd Ashker (“Plaintiff”) is a state inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 17 filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to temporarily 18 stay this case pending resolution of related claim(s) in Ashker v. Newsom (“Ashker I”), N.D. CA, 19 Case No. 4:09-05796. (ECF No. 85). On September 6, 2022, the magistrate judge in Ashker I 20 issued a ruling resolving the motions Plaintiff identified as the reason to stay the case. Ashker I, 21 ECF No. 1695. On October 3, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion, in part because the 22 magistrate judge’s ruling Ashker I resolved the motions Plaintiff identified as a reason to stay the 23 case and Plaintiff did not ask that the case be stayed pending resolution of motion(s) for 24 reconsideration and potential appeals. (ECF No. 88). On that same day, Plaintiff filed a reply in 25 support of his motion. (ECF No. 89). In his reply, Plaintiff states that his attorneys in Ashker I 26 will seek de novo review of the magistrate judge’s ruling, and he asks, for the first time, that the 27 case be stayed pending this review. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff alleges that, based on his experience, this 28 review will likely take three to five months. 1 Plaintiff's motion to stay has already been denied. Moreover, Plaintiff asks for different 2 | relief based on new facts in his reply. The Court need not consider Plaintiff's new arguments. 3 | See, e.g., Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The district court need not 4 | consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.”’). 5 In any event, the Court believes its prior ruling was correct even after review of □□□□□□□□□□□ 6 | arguments in his reply. 7 Accordingly, the Court will take no further action on Plaintiff's reply. The case will 8 || proceed according to the schedule issued in document 90. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ October 5, 2022 [sf ey 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28