(PC) Grzeslo v. Fisher ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 JAMES GRZESLO, 1:21-cv-01371-JLT-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMOVE ATTORNEY 12 v. LAWRENCE BRAGG FROM CASE AND TO STAY CASE 13 B. SAUZO, (ECF No. 53) 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 Plaintiff James Grzelso is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s First 19 Amendment claim against Defendant Suazo. Generally, Plaintiff’s motion seeks (1) an order removing Attorney Lawrence Bragg from 20 this case for allegedly engaging in ex parte communications and (2) an order staying this case 21 while criminal charges are pursued against Defendant B. Sauzo. 22 As to the first request, the Court has previously denied two similar motions, finding no 23 evidence of any improper ex parte communications by defense counsel in this case. (ECF Nos. 24 49, 51). Further, the Court noted in its latest order that “any future summary and unsupported 25 motions or objections concerning ex parte communications . . . will be summarily denied.” (ECF 26 No. 51, p. 2 n.2). This latest request fits this description. Moreover, the Court notes that, on 27 March 17, 2023, three days before Plaintiff filed this motion, a different attorney, Attorney Molly 28 1 Christ, was noticed to represent Defendant, and Attorney Bragg is no longer representing 2 Defendant in this case. (ECF No. 52). Thus, Plaintiff’s request is also moot. 3 Plaintiff’s second request is hard to follow, but he generally appears to argue that 4 Defendant committed a crime against him in connection with the allegations in this case and asks that this case to be stayed “pursuant to federal criminal felony hate crime charges against 5 Defendant” and for “Court notification of criminal action and representation by the state on 6 behalf of Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 53, p. 10) (capitalization omitted). 7 District courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to stay a case. See Landis v. N. 8 Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power 9 inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time 10 and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”). The moving party has the burden to show that 11 a stay is appropriate. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). In determining whether to enter 12 a stay, the court must consider the competing interests at stake, including (1) “the possible 13 damage which may result from the granting of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party 14 may suffer in being required to go forward,” and (3) “the orderly course of justice measured in 15 terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be 16 expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing 17 Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). 18 Plaintiff provides nothing to indicate that charges against Defendant have been filed or will 19 be filed. And to the extent that he seeks to initiate criminal charges himself, he cannot do so. See 20 Banuelos v. Gabler, No. 1:18-CV-00675-LJO-SAB, 2018 WL 2328221, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 21 2018) (“[U]nless a specific statute provides for a private right of action, courts have found that 22 violations of Title 18 are properly brought by the United States government through criminal 23 proceedings and not by individuals in a civil action.”). There being no reason to impose a stay, the Court will not stay this case. 24 \\\ 25 \\\ 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 53) to remove Attorney 2 | Lawrence Bragg from this case and to stay this case is denied. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 | Dated: _March 22, 2023 [Je hey — 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28