UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 27, 2012
DENARD DARNELL NEAL,
HECTOR ALFONSO RIOS, JR.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A STAY AND ORDER TO SUBMIT CORRECT
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS OR PAY THE FILING FEE
WITHIN 14 DAYS
Plaintiff Denard Darnell Neal ("Plaintiff"), a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil action on August 22, 2011, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for the violation of civil rights by federal actors.
Plaintiff initiated this action on August 22, 2011. The Court has issued several orders directing Plaintiff to submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the required filing fee. (ECF Nos. 4 & 10.) Plaintiff has yet to file a proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Instead, he filed a motion to stay his case until August 6, 2012 because he is currently housed in Fresno County Jail and dealing with criminal charges filed against him. (Mot., ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff's motion to stay the proceedings is now before the Court.
The United States Supreme Court has indicated that "the power to stay proceedings 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. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance." Landis v. North America Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, 57 S.Ct. 163 (1936). In this regard, "the proponent of the stay bears the burden of establishing its need." Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706, 117 S.Ct. 1636 (1997).
In his Motion to Stay the Proceedings, Plaintiff states that he cannot prosecute this civil action because he only has limited law library access and needs to devote his limited resources to dealing with his criminal charges. (Id.) However, the only issue currently pending in this action is the Court's order directing Plaintiff to either file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. Since the Court issued its first order for this in September 2011, Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension (ECF No. 7), an inadequate motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 9) and the current motion before the Court (ECF No. 12). The Court will stay an action merely for the convenience of a party, and Plaintiff has made no showing that his ability to litigate this action will differ materially following the resolution of his criminal charges.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to stay the proceedings be DENIED;
2. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Order, Plaintiff shall submit the attached application to proceed in forma pauperis, completed and signed, or in the alternative, pay the $350.00 filing fee for this action. No requests for extension will be granted without a showing of good cause. Within sixty (60) days of the date of service of this Order, Plaintiff shall submit a certified copy of his/her prison trust statement for the six month period immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint; and
3. Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.