Opinion
1:18-cv-01148 JLT (PC)
01-09-2019
RAYMOND C. WATKINS, Plaintiff, v. TUOLUMNE COUNT JAIL, et al., Defendant(s).
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY ACTION AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S FIRST MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Docs. 16, 17) 60-DAY DEADLINE
On January 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed two motions -- one to stall/stay the case until he is returned to jail from the state hospital (Doc. 16) and one seeking an extension of time to file a first amended complaint (Doc. 17). Plaintiff indicates in these motions that he has been unable to access the law library and that he is on medications that interfere with his ability to concentrate.
A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings. This power to stay is "incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Gold v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 723 F.2d 1068, 1077 (3d Cir. 1983) (holding that the power to stay proceedings comes from the power of every court to manage the cases on its docket and to ensure a fair and efficient adjudication of the matter at hand). This is best accomplished by the "exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance." Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55. In determining whether a stay is warranted, courts consider the potential prejudice to the non-moving party; the hardship or inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and the judicial resources that would be saved by simplifying the case or avoiding duplicative litigation if the case before the court is stayed. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). The Ninth Circuit "has sustained or authorized in principle Landis stays on several occasions," Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005), none of which apply here. Though Plaintiff provides good cause for an extension of time, his showing is insufficient to stay the action.
If Plaintiff's circumstances do not improve, he may request additional extensions of time as needed. Likewise, if Plaintiff's circumstances will render him incapable of participating in this action for an extended period, he may submit evidence of this fact in a renewed motion to stay the action. --------
Good cause appearing, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion to stay/stall the action is DENIED without prejudice and Plaintiff is granted 60 days from the date of service of this order in which to file a first amended complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 9 , 2019
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE