Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thomas Farrugia v. Bill Lockyer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 28, 2013

THOMAS FARRUGIA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
BILL LOCKYER, 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. 42)

Plaintiff Thomas Farrugia ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner formerly proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Plaintiff initiated this action on January 11, 2008. (ECF No. 1.) Prior to the Court screening Plaintiff's action, Plaintiff filed several amended complaints. (ECF Nos. 10 & 17.) The Court screened Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 17) and dismissed it, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff failed a Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 26), which the Court also dismissed with leave to amend. (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 34.) The Court also dismissed Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint, but did so with prejudice. (ECF No. 40.)

On November 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay this action. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff alleged that his prison had frequently been placed on lock-down preventing him from properly litigating this action. (Id.

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, 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).

The Court finds no justification for a stay in this case. Despite multiple opportunities, Plaintiff was unable to state a cognizable cause of action and his case was closed. There are no deadlines facing him.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to stay the proceedings be DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130328

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.