1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAFONZO R. TURNER, No. 2:23-cv-0954 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SINGH, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants improperly confiscated his durable medical 19 equipment. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for stay (ECF No. 19) and his motion 20 for clarification (ECF No. 21). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned will grant the 21 motion for clarification and recommend that the motion for stay be denied. 22 I. Background 23 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a motion for temporary restraining order and 24 preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 1.) The undersigned determined the action should be 25 transferred to the Fresno Division of the Eastern District because it appeared from the allegations 26 that the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claim took place at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”). 27 (ECF No. 3.) 28 //// 1 Following transfer, the magistrate judge then assigned to the case directed plaintiff to 2 complete an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee and file a complaint. 3 (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff submitted a complaint indicating the events giving rise to the claim 4 occurred at the California Health Care Facility and a request that the case be transferred back to 5 the Sacramento Division. (ECF Nos. 8, 9.) The magistrate judge transferred the action back to 6 Sacramento Division because CHCF is located in San Joaquin County which is within the 7 Sacramento Division. (ECF No. 10.) 8 Following transfer, plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 13.) 9 Therein, he stated he was in the custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriff and requested an 10 order form this court to return him to KVSP. (Id. at 1-2.) The undersigned recommended1 the 11 request be denied and directed plaintiff to file a properly completed in forma pauperis application 12 or pay the filing fee within thirty days. (ECF No. 14.) Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion to 13 proceed in forma pauperis and paid the filing fee. (ECF No. 15.) 14 By order dated December 4, 2023, the undersigned screened the complaint. (ECF No. 15 16.) The screening order determined plaintiff stated a potentially cognizable retaliation claim 16 against defendants Singh and Willis but did not state any additional claims. (Id.) Plaintiff was 17 given the option to proceed with the complaint as screened or to amend the complaint. (Id.) 18 Plaintiff elected to amend the complaint. (ECF No. 17.) He filed a request for stay 19 concurrently with the notice of election form. (Id. at 2.) In support of his request, he again stated 20 that he was incarcerated at the Los Angeles County Jail without access to his legal property. (Id.) 21 In light of plaintiff’s submission of his notice of election form indicating he wanted to amend the 22 complaint, the undersigned directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 18.) 23 II. Stay 24 Plaintiff states he is seeking a stay “due to extraordinary circumstances that have severely 25 impeded [his] ability to effectively participate in [his] legal proceedings.” (ECF No. 19 at 1.) He 26 states he was taken from prison without notice and when he requested his legal materials, he was 27
28 1 The findings and recommendations were adopted on January 11, 2024. (ECF No. 20.) 1 informed he would be returned to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2 (“CDCR”) custody that same day. (Id.) However, he states he is presently confined in the Los 3 Angeles County Jail. (Id.) He alleges he sent three previous requests for stay to this court. The 4 docket indicates that plaintiff filed a notice of change of address (ECF No. 12) and a motion 5 requesting an order from this court directing officials to return him to KVSP (ECF No. 13). 6 Plaintiff further states that jail conditions have “severely limited [his] ability to prepare and 7 participate” in these proceedings. He states he does not have his legal documents and has been 8 provided one pencil, but no sharpener. (ECF No. 19 at 1.) He also claims the facility only 9 provides one hour of law library access per week. He seeks a stay of these proceedings until he is 10 returned to CDCR custody. 11 The United States Supreme Court has clearly indicated that “the power to stay 12 proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the 13 causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How 14 this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests 15 and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). In 16 this regard, “the proponent of the stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. 17 Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). 18 Plaintiff has not indicated when he may be returned to CDCR custody, and as previously 19 stated, he is not entitled to an order returning him to KVSP. (ECF No. 14 at 3.) Additionally, 20 plaintiff has not explained how the deprivation of his legal property prevents him from setting 21 forth his allegations in an amended complaint. Thus, the court finds an indefinite stay is not 22 warranted. However, in light of plaintiff’s statement that he does not have access to his legal 23 property the court will direct the Clerk of Court to send plaintiff a copy of the complaint and the 24 December 4, 2023, screening order. Additionally, plaintiff may request additional time to file an 25 amended complaint. Any request should state the amount of time sought and the reason such 26 time is necessary. 27 //// 28 //// 1 iI. Motion for Clarification 2 Plaintiff states he never requested to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 21 at 1.) He 3 || also claims he does not have access to his legal property. He again requests a stay until he has 4 || access to his legal property. (Id.) Plaintiff states he filed an injunction seeking an order sending 5 || him back to KVSP. He states that request has not been addressed and “the judge has now made a 6 || mistaken ruling/order stating [plaintiff] moved to file an amended complaint.” (Id. at 2.) 7 The court construes the motion as requesting clarification regarding the undersigned’s 8 | order directing plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, the court will grant the 9 || motion for clarification. Plaintiff is advised that he was directed to file an amended complaint 10 || after he elected to amend the complaint, rather than proceed only on the claims the undersigned 11 || found cognizable in the December 4, 2023, screening order. 12 IV. Conclusion 13 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiff's motion for clarification (ECF No. 21) is granted; and 15 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the complaint (ECF No. 16 9) and the December 4, 2023, screening order (ECF No. 16). 17 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's request for stay (ECF No. 19) be 18 | denied. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States Magistrate Judge 20 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one (21) 21 || days after being served these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 22 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAFONZO R. TURNER, No. 2:23-cv-0954 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SINGH, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants improperly confiscated his durable medical 19 equipment. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for stay (ECF No. 19) and his motion 20 for clarification (ECF No. 21). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned will grant the 21 motion for clarification and recommend that the motion for stay be denied. 22 I. Background 23 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a motion for temporary restraining order and 24 preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 1.) The undersigned determined the action should be 25 transferred to the Fresno Division of the Eastern District because it appeared from the allegations 26 that the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claim took place at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”). 27 (ECF No. 3.) 28 //// 1 Following transfer, the magistrate judge then assigned to the case directed plaintiff to 2 complete an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee and file a complaint. 3 (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff submitted a complaint indicating the events giving rise to the claim 4 occurred at the California Health Care Facility and a request that the case be transferred back to 5 the Sacramento Division. (ECF Nos. 8, 9.) The magistrate judge transferred the action back to 6 Sacramento Division because CHCF is located in San Joaquin County which is within the 7 Sacramento Division. (ECF No. 10.) 8 Following transfer, plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 13.) 9 Therein, he stated he was in the custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriff and requested an 10 order form this court to return him to KVSP. (Id. at 1-2.) The undersigned recommended1 the 11 request be denied and directed plaintiff to file a properly completed in forma pauperis application 12 or pay the filing fee within thirty days. (ECF No. 14.) Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion to 13 proceed in forma pauperis and paid the filing fee. (ECF No. 15.) 14 By order dated December 4, 2023, the undersigned screened the complaint. (ECF No. 15 16.) The screening order determined plaintiff stated a potentially cognizable retaliation claim 16 against defendants Singh and Willis but did not state any additional claims. (Id.) Plaintiff was 17 given the option to proceed with the complaint as screened or to amend the complaint. (Id.) 18 Plaintiff elected to amend the complaint. (ECF No. 17.) He filed a request for stay 19 concurrently with the notice of election form. (Id. at 2.) In support of his request, he again stated 20 that he was incarcerated at the Los Angeles County Jail without access to his legal property. (Id.) 21 In light of plaintiff’s submission of his notice of election form indicating he wanted to amend the 22 complaint, the undersigned directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 18.) 23 II. Stay 24 Plaintiff states he is seeking a stay “due to extraordinary circumstances that have severely 25 impeded [his] ability to effectively participate in [his] legal proceedings.” (ECF No. 19 at 1.) He 26 states he was taken from prison without notice and when he requested his legal materials, he was 27
28 1 The findings and recommendations were adopted on January 11, 2024. (ECF No. 20.) 1 informed he would be returned to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2 (“CDCR”) custody that same day. (Id.) However, he states he is presently confined in the Los 3 Angeles County Jail. (Id.) He alleges he sent three previous requests for stay to this court. The 4 docket indicates that plaintiff filed a notice of change of address (ECF No. 12) and a motion 5 requesting an order from this court directing officials to return him to KVSP (ECF No. 13). 6 Plaintiff further states that jail conditions have “severely limited [his] ability to prepare and 7 participate” in these proceedings. He states he does not have his legal documents and has been 8 provided one pencil, but no sharpener. (ECF No. 19 at 1.) He also claims the facility only 9 provides one hour of law library access per week. He seeks a stay of these proceedings until he is 10 returned to CDCR custody. 11 The United States Supreme Court has clearly indicated that “the power to stay 12 proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the 13 causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How 14 this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests 15 and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). In 16 this regard, “the proponent of the stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. 17 Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). 18 Plaintiff has not indicated when he may be returned to CDCR custody, and as previously 19 stated, he is not entitled to an order returning him to KVSP. (ECF No. 14 at 3.) Additionally, 20 plaintiff has not explained how the deprivation of his legal property prevents him from setting 21 forth his allegations in an amended complaint. Thus, the court finds an indefinite stay is not 22 warranted. However, in light of plaintiff’s statement that he does not have access to his legal 23 property the court will direct the Clerk of Court to send plaintiff a copy of the complaint and the 24 December 4, 2023, screening order. Additionally, plaintiff may request additional time to file an 25 amended complaint. Any request should state the amount of time sought and the reason such 26 time is necessary. 27 //// 28 //// 1 iI. Motion for Clarification 2 Plaintiff states he never requested to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 21 at 1.) He 3 || also claims he does not have access to his legal property. He again requests a stay until he has 4 || access to his legal property. (Id.) Plaintiff states he filed an injunction seeking an order sending 5 || him back to KVSP. He states that request has not been addressed and “the judge has now made a 6 || mistaken ruling/order stating [plaintiff] moved to file an amended complaint.” (Id. at 2.) 7 The court construes the motion as requesting clarification regarding the undersigned’s 8 | order directing plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, the court will grant the 9 || motion for clarification. Plaintiff is advised that he was directed to file an amended complaint 10 || after he elected to amend the complaint, rather than proceed only on the claims the undersigned 11 || found cognizable in the December 4, 2023, screening order. 12 IV. Conclusion 13 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiff's motion for clarification (ECF No. 21) is granted; and 15 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the complaint (ECF No. 16 9) and the December 4, 2023, screening order (ECF No. 16). 17 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's request for stay (ECF No. 19) be 18 | denied. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States Magistrate Judge 20 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one (21) 21 || days after being served these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 22 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 23 || to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 24 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 25 || Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 26 || Dated: February 23, 2024
DB:12 28 || DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/turn0954.stay+mtn.clarif BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE