UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 25, 2013
RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE,
PETER FLORES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A STAY (ECF No. 36)
Plaintiff Ruchell Cinque Magee ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner who, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 20, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) The Court screened Plaintiff's Complaint and dismissed it, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the time allowed, and the Court dismissed his action for failure to state a claim and obey a court order. (ECF Nos. 28 & 32.) Plaintiff appealed the Court's judgment and his appeal was dismissed. (ECF Nos. 34, 35, 38.)
On November 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Motion for a Stay Pending U.S. House Judiciary Committee Action." (ECF No. 36.) Plaintiff's motion is relatively incoherent, but is now before the Court.
The United States Supreme Court has clearly 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 (1936). In this regard, "the proponent of the stay bears the burden of establishing its need." Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997).
Even if there remained a pending action which could be stayed, Plaintiff's motion identifies no comprehensible justification for such a stay.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to stay the proceedings be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.