Prank J. Lee v. Mason A. Williams and Honorable Thomas Baker

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Caen ROANOKE, VA ROANOKE DIVISION FILED August 17, 202 PRANK J. LEE, ) LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLEF ) By: /s/ M. Poff DEPUTY CLERK Plaintiff, ) Case No. 7:25-cv-00309 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) MASON A. WILLIAMS and ) HONORABLE THOMAS BAKER, ) By: Hon. Thomas T. Cullen ) United States District Judge Defendants. )

Plaintiff Frank J. Lee, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Mason A. Williams and the Honorable Thomas Baker.! (See Compl. [ECF No. 1].) This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's motion to stay. (ECF No. 26.) Por the following reasons, the motion to stay will be denied. On April 29, 2025, Plaintiff executed his complaint. (See ECF No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants arising out of state post-conviction proceedings conducted in the Circuit Court for Wise County. (See zd. at 2-4.) On August 19, 2025, Plaintiff executed a motion for leave to amend his complaint (ECF No. 15), which the court granted on January 30, 2026 (see ECF No. 23). In so doing, the court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. (See zd.) Instead of filing an amended complaint within that time frame, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to stay. (See ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff requests that the court stay his deadline to file an amended complaint until the Supreme Court of Virginia addresses his pending appeal of the denial of his state habeas petition. (See zd.) According to

' The court understands Williams to be an assistant attorney general for the Commonwealth of Virginia and Baker to be a judge on the Circuit Court for Wise County, Virginia. (See Compl. at 2.)

Plaintiff, failure to grant his requested relief would violate his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. (See id. at 2.) Whether to stay proceedings is entrusted to the discretion of the district court. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936). In deciding motions to stay pending appeal, district courts generally consider four factors: (1) whether the party requesting a stay will likely

prevail on the merits of the appeal, (2) whether the moving party will suffer irreparable injury if the stay is denied, (3) whether other parties will be substantially harmed by the stay, and (4) whether the public interest will be served by granting the stay. See Long v. Robinson, 432 F.2d 977, 979 (4th Cir. 1970); see also United States v. Carter, No. 3:16-cv-00674, 2019 WL 10814595, at *1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 6, 2019) (same). Here, apart from a conclusory statement that he “believes he will win this action on its

merits” (see Compl. at 2), Plaintiff has not shown that he will succeed in his appeal or in this action. Additionally, Plaintiff does not show that he will suffer irreparable injury if his requested stay is denied. Instead, he merely states that he may need to assert new claims against Defendants depending on the outcome of his state appellate proceedings. (See id.) But without more, the court cannot say that Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm absent his requested stay. And though Defendants have yet to be served and, therefore, are unlikely to suffer any harm

if the stay is granted, Plaintiff does not address whether the public interest will be served by his requested stay. (See id.) Plaintiff has accordingly failed to show entitlement to his requested relief. Therefore, his motion to stay will be denied. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and the accompanying Order to Plaintiff. ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2026.

/s/ Thomas T. Cullen HON. THOMAS T. CULLEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE