(PC) Rhodes v. Ruiz

Opinion

PERCY LEE RHODES, Case No. 1:21-cv-00942-CDB (PC)

Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Doc. 42) v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S JOSEPH RUIZ, et al., MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FOR Defendants. 90 DAYS (Doc. 39)

Plaintiff Percy Lee Rhodes is a proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Order and Motion to Move the Court for a Stay of 90 Days and Change of Address.” (See Doc. 39.) On January 8, 2024, the Court issued its Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Defendants’ Failure to File an Opposition or Statement of Non- Opposition (Doc. 42) to Plaintiff’s pending motion. That same date, Defendants filed a Statement of Non-Opposition. (Doc. 43.) Plaintiff seeks a 90-day stay of this action, stating that on November 21, 2023, he “made a 911 call in fear for his safety while suffering from symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder causing a medical hospital stay, treatment and mental health services.” (Doc. 39 at 2.) Those events also effect his present confinement.1 (Id.) Plaintiff essentially requests this action be stayed in light of his present health and well-being. (Id.) Defendants do not oppose a 90-day stay of these proceedings. (Doc. 42.) Defendants state discovery has not yet been completed and no trial date has been set. (Id. at 2.) They state they “do not anticipate that a 90-day stay of the proceedings will prejudice either party and for that reason do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion.” (Id.) Defendants ask the Court to extend the deadlines imposed in the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order by approximately 90 days from the date of any stay. (Id.) The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). A stay is discretionary and the “party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433–34 (2009). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066–67 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, the Court finds good cause in Plaintiff’s representations in support of the requested stay and Defendants’ non-opposition and will grant Plaintiff’s request for a 90-day stay of these proceedings. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 706; Dependable Highway Exp., Inc., 498 F.3d at 1066-67. Further, the Court will modify the relevant deadlines originally imposed in its Discovery and Scheduling Order issued October 3, 2023. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The OSC issued January 8, 2024 (Doc. 42) is DISCHARGED; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion filed December 15, 2023 (Doc. 39) is GRANTED; 3. This action is STAYED for 90 days from the date of service of this order; and 4. The Discovery and Scheduling Order is MODIFIED as follows:

1 Prior to his current incarceration at the Fresno County Jail, Plaintiff’s address of record was a residential a. The exhaustion motion filing deadline is extended from February 3, 2024 to May 3, 2024; b. The discovery deadline is extended from June 3, 2024 to September 1, 2024; and c. The dispositive motion deadline is extended from August 12, 2024 to November 10, 2024. ITIS ORDERED. Dated: _ January 9, 2024 | Ww VL D R~ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE