Anderson v. United States

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 KAREEN ANDERSON, Case No. 2:18-cv-02173-JAD-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER and 6 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ECF Nos. 74 and 75 Motions to Stay and

8 Defendant. Extend Case Schedule

9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motions to Stay and Extend Case Schedule (ECF Nos. 74 and 11 75).1 Plaintiff states he is having difficulty accessing mail and legal materials due to Covid-19, 12 prompting his requests for a stay and extension. 13 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Case Schedule 14 Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Case Schedule does not state what deadlines Plaintiff seeks 15 extended. Discovery closed in this matter on August 3, 2020, before Plaintiff filed his Motion. All 16 other deadlines pertaining to this matter passed with the exception of the dispositive motion deadline, 17 which was extended to November 2, 2020 (ECF No. 83) thereby allowing Plaintiff additional time 18 to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests. Given that Plaintiff has almost two months remaining 19 before dispositive motions are due, and that all other deadlines in this matter have passed, there is 20 no basis to extend the one remaining deadline at this time. For this reason, ECF No. 75, seeking to 21 extend deadlines, is denied. 22 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay 23 With respect to Plaintiff’s request for a stay of these proceedings, the Court recommends this 24 not be granted. While the Court clearly has the inherent power to stay proceedings (Landis v. 25 26

27 1 Plaintiff also moved for an order regarding access to the courts and to ensure legal mail was opened in his 1 N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)), the Court finds a stay is not appropriate here. As explained 2 in Burrell v. Colvin, Case No. CV-14-0050-PHX-LOA, 2014 WL 3894109, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 8, 3 2014):

4 The Ninth Circuit has established the following factors district courts should consider when requested to issue a stay: 1) “stays should not be indefinite in nature” 5 and “should not be granted unless it appears likely the other proceeding will be concluded within a reasonable time[,]” Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. 6 Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir.1979)); 2) courts more 7 appropriately enter stay orders where a party seeks only damages, does not allege continuing harm, and does not seek injunctive or declaratory relief as a stay would 8 result only in delay in monetary recovery, Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268–69 (9th Cir. 9 1962)); 3) stays may be appropriate if resolution of issues in the other proceeding would assist in resolving the proceeding sought to be stayed, id. at 1110–11 (citing 10 CMAX, 300 F.2d at 269 (“In the interests of uniform treatment of like suits there is much to be said for delaying the front runner.”)); and 4) stays may be appropriate 11 for courts’ docket efficiency and fairness to the parties pending resolution of independent proceedings that bear upon the case, “whether the separate 12 proceedings are judicial, administrative, or arbitral in character, and [such stays] do[ ] not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily controlling of 13 the action before the court [,]” id. at 1111 (citing Leyva, 593 F.2d at 863–64). 14 Plaintiff does not state for how long he seeks a stay. This, in and of itself militates against a stay of 15 proceedings. Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief against Defendants, the resolution of which is not 16 favored by a stay. Further, this matter has been pending for some time. Efficiency and the Court’s 17 desire to control its docket favor denying a stay in this matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 18 ORDER 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Case Schedule 20 (ECF No. 75) is DENIED. 21 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 22 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (ECF No. 74) be denied. 23 Dated this 14th day of September, 2020 24

25 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27 1 NOTICE 2 Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Finding and Recommendation must be 3 in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court has 4 held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file 5 objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also 6 held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address 7 and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal 8 factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 9 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27