Smith v. Haynes

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 25, 2019
• Docket: 3:19-cv-05394
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 JOHN GARRETT SMITH, CASE NO. 3:19-CV-5394-RBL-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER TO STAY THE CASE 12 v.

13 RON HAYNES, 14 Respondent.

15 Before the Court is Petitioner John Garrett Smith’s federal habeas Petition and Motion 16 for Court to Enforce Simple Law and Order Revelation of Discovery. See Dkt. 7, 20. On 17 November 13, 2019, the Court received a letter from the United States Supreme Court stating 18 Petitioner had filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case. Dkt. 23. 19 While the filing of an interlocutory appeal does not automatically stay proceedings in the 20 district court, the district court has broad discretion to decide whether a stay is appropriate to 21 “promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Filtrol Corp. v. 22 Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242, 244 (9th Cir. 1972) (quotations and citations omitted); see Clinton v. 23 Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706–07 (1997) (“The District Court has broad discretion to stay 24 1 proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.”). “A trial court may, with 2 propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay 3 of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” 4 Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983); Leyva

5 v. Certified Grocers of California Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863–64 (9th Cir.1979); Ass'n of Irritated 6 Residents v. Fred Schakel Dairy, 634 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1094 (E.D. Cal. 2008). 7 Here, Petitioner has filed an interlocutory appeal with the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme 8 Court. Dkt. 18, 23. Because the Supreme Court’s ruling on the interlocutory appeal could impact 9 the Court’s disposition of the pending proceedings, waiting until the issues on appeal are decided 10 will avoid potential unnecessary litigation and provide direction to this Court. Thus, the Court 11 finds a stay of the entire matter pending the Supreme Court’s decision could serve the interests of 12 fairness and “promote economy of time and effort” for the Court and the parties. Kelleher, 467 13 F.2d at 244. 14 Accordingly, the Court orders this entire matter be stayed pending resolution of

15 Plaintiff’s appeal currently before the Supreme Court. While this matter is stayed, motions will 16 not be considered by the Court. Therefore, the parties are directed to refrain from filing motions 17 with the Court until the stay is lifted. 18 The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending noting dates. See Dkt. 7, 20, 22. 19 When the stay is lifted, the Court will re-note the Amended Petition (Dkt. 7) and the pending 20 Motion (Dkt. 20). 21 Dated this 25th day of November, 2019. 22 A 23 David W. Christel 24 United States Magistrate Judge