Mascorro v. The City of San Diego
This text of Mascorro v. The City of San Diego (Mascorro v. The City of San Diego) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELOY MASCORRO, Case No.: 21-cv-1427-RSH-DDL
12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING STAY PENDING 14 THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., APPEAL, 15 Defendants. (2) GRANTING CLARIFICATION 16 AND DENYING 17 RECONSIDERATION, AND
18 (3) OVERRULING OBJECTIONS 19 [ECF Nos. 138, 139, 141] 20
21 On November 22, 2023, the Court issued an order (1) granting in part and denying 22 in part defense motions to dismiss, (2) denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, 23 and (3) denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file new lawsuits. ECF No. 136. After that 24 order was issued, Plaintiff has made several filings related to that order: (1) a set of 25 objections, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, ECF No. 138; (2) a motion for 26 clarification of the order denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file new lawsuits, along 27 28 1 with a motion to reconsider, ECF No. 139; and (3) a motion to stay the proceedings pending 2 Plaintiff’s appeal of the order, ECF No. 141. The Court addresses these requests below. 3 I. MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL 4 On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay the case pending his appeal 5 of the Court’s November 22, 2023 order. ECF No. 141. Plaintiff thereafter filed a notice of 6 appeal. ECF No. 142. 7 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court 8 to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for 9 itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 10 (1936). “Where it is proposed that a pending proceeding be stayed, the competing interests 11 which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.” CMAX, 12 Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). The party seeking a stay “must make out a 13 clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair 14 possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to someone else.” Landis, 15 299 U.S. at 255. Relevant factors include: (1) “the possible damage that may result from 16 the granting of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being 17 required to go forward,” and (3) “the orderly course of justice . . .” CMAX, Inc., 300 F.2d 18 at 268 (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). 19 Here, Plaintiff does not claim that he would suffer any hardship or inequity in being 20 required to go forward with the case. Instead, Plaintiff argues that the Court’s order was 21 erroneous, and that it would be “practical and equitable” to stay this case until the Court of 22 Appeals rules on his appeal. ECF No. 141 at 2-3. Plaintiff has not met his burden of 23 showing that a stay is warranted, and the Court finds that a stay would interfere with the 24 25 26 27 28 1 orderly course of justice in this lawsuit, filed over two years ago. Plaintiff’s motion for a 2 stay (ECF No. 141) is therefore denied. 3 II. MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND TO RECONSIDER 4 Plaintiff also seeks clarification and reconsideration of that portion of the Court’s 5 November 22, 2023 order denying his motion for leave to file new lawsuits. 6 Plaintiff had previously moved for leave to electronically file new lawsuits by 7 CM/ECF, stating that “these new lawsuits involve multiple defendants and involve injuries 8 that are too different from this current lawsuit (21-cv-1427) that they cannot be 9 consolidated.” ECF No. 134 at 2. In denying this request, the Court noted that it had 10 previously denied a substantially similar motion by Plaintiff (ECF No. 116 at 3-4), and that 11 it was denying Plaintiff’s subsequent motion for the same reasons. ECF No. 136 at 40. 12 In the earlier order, the Court noted that Plaintiff was requesting changes to his 13 CM/ECF account to facilitate filing a new lawsuit electronically as a pro se plaintiff. ECF 14 No. 116 at 3. The Court stated that it “decline[d] to order changes to the CM/ECF system 15 generally or to Plaintiff’s account specifically. If Plaintiff has technical difficulties with his 16 filings, he must contact the CM/ECF helpdesk.” Id. at 2-3. The same rationale applies here. 17 To the extent Plaintiff is asking for some modification to his CM/ECF account or to the 18 CM/ECF filing system generally, the Court declines to order it. Plaintiff is not entitled to 19 special rules, settings, or system architecture to accommodate his desire to conveniently 20 21 22 1 While some district courts in the Ninth Circuit have applied the Landis standard in 23 evaluating a motion to stay pending an interlocutory appeal, others have applied the standard from Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009), which directs courts to consider courts 24 to consider “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to 25 succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the 26 proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 27 964 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 434). Plaintiff has not shown that any of these factors favor granting a stay. 28 1 file additional lawsuits. Additionally, Plaintiff’s current lawsuit is not a proper vehicle for 2 seeking relief relating to future, unrelated lawsuits he is planning. 3 Plaintiff complains that he cannot enter the U.S. courthouse to file a new lawsuit 4 because he “lost his wallet and could not obtain a new identification card because he did 5 not have his birth certificate and was indigent.” ECF No. 139 at 2. However, as early as 6 November 22, 2021, Plaintiff stated in an affidavit in a related case that he had lost his 7 wallet but was “in the process of obtaining a new I.D.” Mascorro v. County of San Diego, 8 No. 21-cv-2012, ECF No. 3 at 2. He has had abundant time to obtain a new birth certificate, 9 to produce an alternative form of identification in order to obtain a California identification 10 card, to send someone else into the courthouse to file his new lawsuit, or to simply mail his 11 new complaint to the Clerk’s Office. 12 Plaintiff’s motion for clarification (ECF No. 139) is therefore granted, consistent 13 with the discussion above, and his motion to reconsider contained in that same filing is 14 denied. 15 III. OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 72 16 Plaintiff has filed a set of objections to the Court’s November 22, 2023 order, 17 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). ECF No. 138. Rule 72(a) provides that 18 “[w]hen a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is referred to a 19 magistrate judge to hear and decide,” the magistrate judge may conduct the required 20 proceedings and issue a decision. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “A party may serve and file 21 objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy.” Id. 22
23 2 Plaintiff states that earlier in this case, a previous judge “allow[ed] Plaintiff to file 24 electronically and ordered the clerks office to print and mail the documents that had been 25 filed by Plaintiff electronically.” ECF No. 139 at 4. The fact that Plaintiff was accommodated in this manner for transmitting relevant paperwork to the U.S.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Mascorro v. The City of San Diego, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mascorro-v-the-city-of-san-diego-casd-2024.