Penwell v. Strange

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 TONY PENWELL, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05722-RJB-JRC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING STAY 12 v. 13 CHERYL STRANGE, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on referral from the district court and on plaintiff’s motion 17 to stay the proceedings indefinitely. See Dkt. 50. 18 The Court “may order a stay of the action pursuant to its power to control its docket and 19 calendar and to provide for a just determination of the cases pending before it.” Leyva v. 20 Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979). However, there is no 21 right to a stay and the party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing the circumstances 22 justify a stay. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433–34 (2009). Indefinite stays are disfavored. See 23 Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). 24 1 Here, plaintiff has not provided sufficient justification for an indefinite stay. Plaintiff 2 appears to allege that he is unable to litigate this action because he was transferred to another 3 facility and has not received many of his personal items, such as books, notes, highlighters, and 4 other similar items he claims he needs. See Dkt. 50 at 1–4. However, since plaintiff signed his 5 motion to stay on July 5, 2022 (Dkt. 50), he filed a motion for preliminary injunction on July 15,

6 2022 (Dkt. 53) and filed a response to defendants’ objections (Dkt. 56) as well as a motion for 7 leave to file an amended complaint on July 29, 2022 (Dkt. 57). Thus, plaintiff appears to be able 8 to continue litigating this action despite his claims to the contrary. 9 Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is denied. Dkt. 50. 10 Dated this 18th day of August, 2022. 11 A 12 J. Richard Creatura Chief United States Magistrate Judge 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24