The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION THAT COURT NOT SEND HIM MAIL (ECF No. 48)
Plaintiff Vahan Jaladian, a former state prisoner currently on parol and in the custody of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security at the Pinal County Adult Detention Center in Florence, Arizona, is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed November 12, 2009 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1; Mot. Show Cause, ECF No. 39.)
Defendant Hernandez has answered the Complaint and the Court has set a discovery cut-off date of September 28, 2012 and a dispositive motion deadline of December 13, 2012. (Order, ECF No. 45.)
On July 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that no more orders or motions be mailed to him as he is soon to be released from ICE/DHS custody. (Motion, ECF No. 48.) That motion is now before the Court.
A. Requirement for Current Address
Plaintiff is required to keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his current address. Local Rule 183(b). A failure to maintain a current address, including a resulting failure to prosecute may result in the imposition of sanctions including, where appropriate dismissal. Cantarella v. Gay, 73 F.3d 368, (9th Cir. 1995); see also Scott v. Belmares, 328 Fed.Appx. 538, 539 (9th Cir. 2009); Local Rule 183(b). The Court must manage this case and process items filed in it regardless of Plaintiff's anticipated transitional status. Plaintiff must assume the responsibility of providing the Court with a mailing address, whether it be his present place of confinement or some other place where the mail will be routed to him.
Plaintiff's motion could be construed as a request to stay proceedings pending resolution of Plaintiff's immigrations proceedings and detention.
"The district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket." Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). "The proponent of the stay bears the burden of establishing its need." Id. at 706. The Court considers the following factors when ruling on a request to stay proceedings: (1) the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and (3) the orderly course of justice, measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. Filtrol Corp. v. Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242, 244 (9th Cir. 1972) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)).
The Court previously denied Plaintiff's request for stay relief. (Order Denying Plaintiff's Motions, ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a stay is needed for reasons beyond his control. Moles v. Lappin, 2012 WL 1372132, at *2 (10th Cir. April 20, 2012). Such a stay would create a risk of prejudice to the Defendant, see Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976) (a presumption of injury arises from delay in resolving an action), delay resolution of this matter on the merits, and is not warranted on the present facts. In considering a stay order, the court should "balance the length of any stay against the strength of the justification given for it." Young v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). He provides no justification for a stay other than the potential need to file a notice of change of address, an event that is within his control.
Plaintiff's motion also could be construed as a request for injunctive relief precluding mailing of documents to Plaintiff. ...