Dent v. Beatle ( 2021 )

Attorney General 2 CHRISTOPHER M. GUY (Bar No. 15239) Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 555 East Washington Ave., Suite 3900 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 5 (702) 486-3326 (phone) (702) 486-3773 (fax) 6 Email: cguy@ag.nv.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendant Frank Beedle 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 BENJAMIN DENT, Case No. 2:20-cv-00294-JAD-BNW 12 Plaintiff, UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY 13 v. THE SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 DISPOSITIVE DEADLINE 14 BEATLE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Defendant, Frank Beedle, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney 17 General, and Christopher M. Guy, Deputy Attorney General, hereby submit Defendant’s 18 Unopposed Motion to Stay the September 30, 2021 Dispositive Deadline. 19 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 This case is a prison civil rights action brought by inmate Benjamin Dent (Dent) 22 asserting a claim arising under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Pursuant to the screening order, Dent was 23 only allowed to proceed on an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Ely State 24 Prison (ESP) correctional officer Frank Beedle (Beedle). ECF No. 6 at 10. 25 On July 21, 2021, Dent filed a motion for leave to amend his First Amended 26 Complaint. ECF No. 21. Defendant filed an opposition, which argued that amendment was 27 futile and that under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c) the proposed Second 28 Amended Complaint (SAC) Required mandatory screening. 2 restricted to pleadings. ECF No. 22 at 4. Indeed, the provisions provide that the court shall 3 dismiss “the case at any time if the court determines,” § 1915(e)(2), “if the court is 4 satisfied,” § 1997e(c)(1), or if “on its face,” § 1997e(c)(2), the claim is frivolous, malicious, 5 fails to state a claim. Id. Dent filed his reply on August 3, 2021. 6 In light of the pending mandatory screening and motion for leave to amend, 7 Defendant filed a motion to stay the case until a ruling and/or issue of a second screening 8 order of the proposed SAC. Pursuant to this Court’s Scheduling Order, dispositive motions 9 are due September 30, 2021. ECF No. 16 at 3 (Scheduling Order); see also ECF No. 24 10 (Defendant’s Motion to Stay). Defendant’s motion was subsequently denied pursuant to LR 11 26-6(c) for a failure to meet and confer. ECF No. 25. 12 After a September 21, 2021 meet and confer, the parties agree that a stay will allow 13 the parties and the court to preserve resources, and a stay would provide the fairest course 14 of action for the parties pending a resolution on the above pending issues. Exhibit A 15 (Declaration of Counsel). 16 II. LEGAL DISCUSSION 17 This Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 18 control its own docket. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citing Landis v. N. 19 Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, (1936)). These inherent powers include “‘the power to stay 20 proceedings . . . to control the disposition of the causes of its docket with economy of time 21 and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’” Dependable Hwy Exp., Inc. v. Navigators 22 Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 254). Stays are 23 particularly appropriate to be considered when doing so is “the fairest course of action for 24 the parties ... pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” 25 Dependable, supra (quoting Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 26 863–64 (9th Cir. 1979)). These independent proceedings include other judicial proceedings. 27 Id. 28 /// 1 Here, in light of the pending action required under § 1915A(e)(2) and § 1997e(c) and 2 ||the pending motion for leave to amend, a stay will allow the parties and the court to 3 || preserve resources, and a stay would provide the fairest course of action for the parties 4 || pending a resolution on the above pending issues. Depending on this Court’s screening of 5 ||the SAC, additional parties may be added or if this Court finds that the case is frivolous, 6 || malicious, or fails to state a claim the case may be dismissed. 7 Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy and economy for counsel and litigants, 8 |ithe Defendant submits this unopposed motion that requests this Court to stay the 9 || dispositive deadline until a ruling and/or issue of a second screening order of the proposed 10 11 CONCLUSION 12 Accordingly, in the interest of judicial economy and economy for counsel and 13 || litigants, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court stay the dispositive deadline, 14 || September 30, 2021, until a ruling and/or issue of a second screening order of the proposed 15 16 DATED this 21st day of September, 2021. 17 AARON D. FORD 18 Attorney General By: /s/ Christopher M. Guy 19 CHRISTOPHER M. GUY (Bar No. 15239) 20 Deputy Attorney General 21 Attorneys for Defendant Frank Beedle 22 23 Order 24 IT ISSO ORDERED 25 DATED: 10:13 am, September 22, 2021 26 Lrg le weber | 27 BRENDA WEKSLER 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 I certify that I am an employee of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, 3 and that on September 21, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing MOTION TO STAY 4 THE SEPTEMBER 30, 2021 DISPOSITIVE DEADLINE, via this Court’s electronic 5 filing system. Parties who are registered with this Court’s electronic filing system will be 6 served electronically. 7 Benjamin Dent #86741 High Desert State Prison 8 PO Box 650 Indian Springs, NV 89070 9 HDSP_LawLibrary@doc.nv.gov Plaintiff, Pro Se 10 /s/ Sheri Regalado 11 Sheri Regalado, an employee of the Office of the Nevada Attorney General 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28