(PC) Singh v. Sacramento County Sheriff

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GURPREET SINGH, No. 2:23-cv-0237 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a former county inmate now housed at the Napa State Hospital, proceeds pro se 18 and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 26, 2023, 19 the undersigned recommended that this action be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to file an 20 amended complaint. On August 4, 2023, plaintiff filed a request for extension of time to file 21 objections, and a request to “hold” this action pending his treatment at Napa State Hospital.1 22 The court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its 23 own docket. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 24 248, 254 (1936)). The party requesting a stay has the burden of establishing its need, id. at 708, 25 and must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward. Lockyer 26 v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). In 27 1 Plaintiff also filed the Notice of Amendment form, but no amended complaint was provided. 28 (ECF No. 17.) Another Notice of Amendment form is appended below. 1 | determining whether to grant a motion to stay, the court must weigh the competing interests 2 | affected by the grant or refusal of a stay. Id. at 1110 (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 268). These 3 || interests include: (1) the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, (2) the 4 | hardship of inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and (3) the orderly 5 || course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and 6 || questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. Id. “Generally, stays should not 7 | be indefinite in nature.” Dependable Highway Exp.., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 8 | 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2007). Ifa stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is 9 || required to justify it. Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). 10 Plaintiff's request to “hold” or stay this action is unsupported. Plaintiff generally claims 11 || he is “under treatment,” but fails to show an inability to prosecute this action while he is housed 12 || at the Napa State Hospital. Moreover, plaintiff provides no facts as to how long he is projected to 13 || be housed at the hospital. Because plaintiff has not shown that the imposition of an indefinite 14 || stay is warranted at this time, the court denies his request without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew 15 || his request upon a proper showing. 16 In the meantime, plaintiff is granted sixty days in which to file objections and his 17 || proposed amended complaint. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the July 26, 2023 18 || findings and recommendations will be routed to the district court for review and adoption. 19 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Plaintiffs motion for stay (ECF No. 16) is denied without prejudice; 21 2. Plaintiffs motion for extension of time (ECF No. 16) is granted; and 22 3. Within sixty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall file objections and his 23 || amended complaint that complies with the May 18, 2023 order (ECF No. 13). 24 || Dated: August 11, 2023 Foci) Aharon 2% KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 3g /sing0237.styd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GURPREET SINGH, No. 2:23-cv-0237 KJN P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT 13 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF, et 14 al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order 17 filed______________. 18 _____________ Amended Complaint 19 DATED:

20 ________________________________ 21 Plaintiff

23 24 25 26 27 28