(PC) Benton v. Clingman ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRUCE MILES BENTON Case No. 2:22-cv-02275-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CLINGMAN, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On March 28, 2023, I screened plaintiff’s complaint and notified him that it appeared to 19 be barred by the statute of limitations since the claims as alleged appear to have accrued in 2014. 20 The complaint also demonstrated that plaintiff was attempting to relitigate claims already litigated 21 in another action in this district, which it seems he accidently dismissed. See ECF No. 1 at 5-7; 22 Benton v. El Dorado Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 2:15-cv-00772-TLN-AC (“15cv772”). I informed 23 plaintiff that he cannot resume litigation of that previous case in this new case. I also granted him 24 the opportunity to amend his complaint and to explain why it should proceed. ECF No. 11. 25 Instead of filing an amended complaint, plaintiff has filed four motions for extension of 26 time, six motions for appointment of counsel, and the instant motion to stay this proceeding. See 27 28 1 | ECFNos. 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, & 24. Plaintiff moves for a stay pending resolution of a 2 | motion he filed in 15-cv-772 seeking to re-open the case. See 15-cv-772 ECF No. 84. 3 Plaintiff's motion is denied. First, he has not demonstrated a need to stay this action. See 4 | Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-08 (1997) (A district court has “broad discretion to stay 5 || proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket, . . . [t]he proponent of a stay 6 | bears the burden of establishing its need”). As I previously attempted to explain to plaintiff, he 7 | cannot resume litigation of a closed case here. And second, plaintiff previously moved to vacate 8 || the order dismissing case 15-cv-772, and Judge Claire disregarded the filing and warned plaintiff 9 | that “no orders will issue in response to future filings.” ECF No. 82. Thus, it appears □□□□□□□□□□ □ 10 | recent filing in 15-cv-772 may not result in the issuance of an order by Judge Claire; this would 11 | seem to make a stay pending Judge Claire’s ruling on his motion ill-advised. 12 I will afford plaintiff one final opportunity to amend his complaint. If plaintiff does not 13 | file an amended complaint within thirty days of this order’s issuance, I will consider the non- 14 | filing a failure to comply with a court order and recommend that this case be dismissed. 15 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiffs motion to stay this proceeding, ECF No. 24, is denied. 17 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to file an amended complaint. 18 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a § 1983 form complaint. 19 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation of dismissal. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ( q Sty - Dated: _ September 11, 2023 q——— 23 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28