IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 24, 2012
INEZ TITO LUGO, PLAINTIFF,
JOSEPH BICK, ET AL.,
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS ORDER AND
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff's motion for extension of time, motion to stay and motion to compel discovery. Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion to stay, but oppose both of the remaining motions. Upon review of the motions, the documents in support and opposition, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
In the operative complaint, filed February 3, 2011, plaintiff brings suit against various individuals affiliated with California Medical Facility, where he is presently housed, on the ground that these defendants have violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide adequate and appropriate medical care for a serious medical need, Hepatitis-C.
On January 23, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to stay. He contends that on January 10, 2012, he was found suitable for parole and granted a release date of 150 days from the date of the Board of Parole Hearings' proceeding. Thus, he anticipates being released in early-June 2012 (the court calculates this date as June 8, 2012). Plaintiff requests a stay of this matter so that he may, upon release, seek and retain counsel. Defendants have filed a statement of non-opposition. The court has the inherent power to stay proceedings in cases over which it presides. Rohan ex rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803, 817 (9th Cir. 2003); Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Here, the court finds good cause to stay these proceedings. In light thereof, plaintiff's motion to compel and motion for extension of time will be denied without prejudice.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's January 19, 2012 motion for extension of time is denied;
2. Plaintiff's February 1, 2012 motion to compel is denied;
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiff's January 23, 2012 motion to stay be granted;
2. This action be stayed;
3. Plaintiff be required to move to lift the stay within sixty days from the date of his release on parole on June 8, 2012. Alternatively, should the release date be deferred or revoked, plaintiff be required to immediately notify the court; and
4. The Clerk of the Court be directed to administratively close this case.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.