(PC) Chatman v. Vera

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AUDREE CHATMAN, ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-01463-DAD-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. ) FOR POSTPONENT, AND GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE H. VERA, ) TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT 15 Defendant. ) ) [ECF No. 30] 16 ) ) 17 ) 18 Plaintiff Audree Chatman is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for postponement of the case, filed December 16, 2019. Plaintiff requests a postponement of the case due to his mental health condition and treatment at the acute level of care.

23 The United States Supreme Court has indicated that “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). “[T]he proponent of the stay bears the burden of establishing its needs.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997).

1 At this juncture, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show that a stay of these || proceedings is necessary. Based on Plaintiffs present medical circumstances and in the interest of || justice, the Court will grant Plaintiff thirty (30) additional days to file an opposition to Defendants’ || motion for summary judgment, if he desires to do so.

5 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff's motion to postpone the proceedings is denied; and 7 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an 8 opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, if he desires to do so.

10 || IT IS SO ORDERED.

A (re || Dated: December 17, 2019 OF 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE