(PC)Martin v. Pogue ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JARED ANDREW MARTIN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00560-ADA-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY 13 v. ORDER NOTING PLAINTIFFS 14 TYYSON J. POGUE, FNU MENDOZA, VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT N. FLORES, FNU GUZMAN, PREJUDICE UNDER RULE 41 15 Defendants. ORDER MOOTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 16 TO CONSOLIDATE 17 (Doc. Nos. 15, 16) 18 19 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “motion to toll time from moving forward on this 20 case or dismiss without prejudice” filed on December 29, 2022. (Doc. No. 16). In summary, 21 Plaintiff states he is encountering delays with exhausting his administrative remedies at the 22 county jail. Therefore, he seeks to either “toll the case” from proceeding forward, essentially 23 seeking an indefinite stay of the case; or asks to dismiss the action without prejudice until he is 24 released from jail and not subject to the exhaustion requirement. (Id. at 1-2). 25 To the extent Plaintiff seeks a stay, an indefinite stay in this case is not warranted. Clinton 26 v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citations omitted). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is 27 incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its 28 docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis, 299 U.S. 1 | at 254. However, “[t]he proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton, 2 | 5200U.S. at 708. Plaintiff has not presented sufficient grounds for an indefinite stay of this case 3 | because exhaustion is condition precedent to filing a civil rights claim. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 4 | US. 81, 93 (2006); see also McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2002). 5 In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that the case be dismissed without prejudice so he may 6 | litigate it upon his release from jail. (Doc. No. 16 at 1-2). Service of process has not occurred in 7 | this case. Plaintiff has the right as a matter of law to voluntarily dismiss this action pursuant to 8 | Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)G). Thus, the Court construes Plaintiff’s request a Rule 41 notice. 9 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 10 1. Plaintiffs motion to stay (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED. 11 2. In light of Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal, this action is terminated by 12 | operation of law without further order from the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)@). 13 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to reflect Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal 14 | without prejudice, vacate Plaintiff’s pending motion to consolidate (Doc. No. 15), and close this 15 || case. 16 Dated: _ January 3, 2023 law ZA. foareh Zackte 17 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ig UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28