Hernandez v. Lord

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

HECTOR HUGO HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:19-cv-00151 RRB

vs. ORDER DARLENE LORD, et al., GRANTING STAY (Docket 148) Defendants.

Plaintiff, Hector Hernandez, moves to stay this matter due to difficulties accessing legal materials in light of his quarantine due to COVID-19, among other logistical problems. Docket 148. “A district court has the ability to stay proceedings, or stop action in a case, as part of its inherent power to ‘control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’”1 Moreover, to decide if a stay is appropriate, “courts weigh competing interests, including: (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 simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.”2

1 Hartline v. Nat’l Univ., No. 2:14-CV-00635-KJM-AC, 2017 WL 11441041, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2017) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). 2 Id. (citing CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). The Court has considered the foregoing factors and concludes that a stay is appropriate. This matter is stayed until January 2, 2023. The parties shall file either separate status reports or one joint status report on or before January 9, 2023. IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of August, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Ralph R. Beistline RALPH R. BEISTLINE Senior United States District Judge