Williams v. Navarro

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA |} LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 3:18-cv-01318-DMS-RBM CDCR #AG-2394, 3 Plaintiff,| ORDER: 14 (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S || OFFICER O. NAVARRO, MOTION TO STAY; AND N.A. GARSILASO, E. ESTRADA, (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN || C. BAGNOL, F. LEWIS, L. HALL, R.KATYAL, S. KNITTMAN ADDITIONAL NINETY (90) DAYS 17 C. TISC ORNI A ° OF LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST 18 ° AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants.

22 [Doc. 59] 24 I. INTRODUCTION 25 Lance Williams (“Plaintiff”), a California prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma || pauperis, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) against several || staff members at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego. (See || generally Docs. 1, 17.) Liberally construing Plaintiff's June 10, 2020 filing, it is a Motion ||to Stay Proceedings (“Motion to Stay”) for sixty (60) days. (Doc. 59.) For the reasons outlined below, the Motion to Stay is DENIED, however, the Court sua sponte GRANTS || Plaintiff an additional ninety (90) days of leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff 4 CAUTIONED that any further extensions to file a First Amended Complaint will not 5 granted absent a showing of good cause.

6 Il. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 7 Notably, the instant Motion to Stay is duplicative of Plaintiff's May 15, 2020 filing, || which the undersigned construed as a Motion to Stay Proceedings for thirty (30) days.

9 ||(Compare Doc. 56 with Doc. 59.) The Court’s May 21, 2020 Order denied the initial || Motion to Stay but sua sponte granted Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days of leave to || file a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 57.) The procedural background in the Court’s || May 21, 2020 Order is incorporated below.

13 Defendants C. Bagnol, S. Knittman, C. Tiscornia, F. Lewis, O. Navarro, R. Katyal, || N. Garsilaso, E. Estrada, and L. Hall (collectively “Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss |}Counts Two and Three of Plaintiff's Complaint. (Docs. 39, 50.) On February 10, 2020, || the Court issued an order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, dismissing Counts Two 17 Three, and dismissing Defendants A-Yard Building #2 Staff Corrections Officers, RJD |/Litigation Department Litigation Coordinators, and RJD EOP Scheduling Department || Mental Health Care Scheduling Department for lack of timely service. (Doc. 52.) The || Court also granted Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint up through March 26, ||2020. Ud. at 19.) The Court cautioned Plaintiff that “if he does not file a First Amended ||Complaint [by March 26, 2020] or show good cause for an extension of time to amend || prior to expiration of the time to amend, the Court will proceed with this action on [C]ount ||[OJne of the Complaint only.” (Ud.) Count One alleges a violation of Plaintiff's Eighth ||Amendment rights when he was not released from his cell to shower and obtain || prescription medication on sixteen occasions, retaliated against for his use of the inmate || grievance system, and intentionally hit by his cell door and denied medical care for the |/resultant injuries. (Doc. 1 at 5-7.) l Over two weeks after the time to file a First Amended Complaint expired, Plaintiff || filed a Motion for Extension of Time. (Doc. 54.) The undersigned granted Plaintiff an ||}extension through June 1, 2020, to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 55.) As outlined || above, Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Stay the case for thirty (30) days to allow the parties ||an opportunity to engage in settlement discussions. (Doc. 56.) The Court denied the || Motion to Stay but sua sponte granted Plaintiff additional time to file a First Amended |{Complaint. (Doc. 57.)

8 If. DISCUSSION 9 Plaintiff's instant Motion to Stay offers no new facts or law to establish the necessity || of staying the case for sixty days. (Doc. 59.)

11 A district court has “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power ||to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997) (citing Landis 13 North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is |}incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on 15 docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis, 16 U.S. at 254. However, “[t]he proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its ||need.” Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708; see also Roberts v. Beard, No. 15cv104-WQH-PCL, 2017 18 Dist. LEXIS 113388, at *6 (S.D. Cal. July 19, 2017) (denying pro se inmate’s motion || to stay in Section 1983 action); Turner v. San Diego Cent. Jail, No. 13cv1133-WQH-BGS, ||2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165901, at *4—*6 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2013) (denying pro se |/inmate’s motion to stay in Section 1983 action for failure to establish its necessity).

22 Here, Plaintiff has not met his burden in establishing the necessity ofa stay. Clinton, 23 U.S. at 708; Roberts, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113388, at *6; Turner, 2013 U.S. Dist. |/LEXIS 165901, at *4—*6. In contrast, Plaintiff merely requests a stay to allow the parties 25 to engage in a “post-screening [alternative dispute resolution] pilot project.” (Doc.

26 ||59 at 1.) While Plaintiff claims a stay will “resolve this case more expeditiously and less ||expensively for [the] [S]tate,” the Court also has an obligation to promote the just, efficient |/and economical determination of every action and proceeding.” (Doc. 59 at 1); see also |}CivLR 1.1(c). This case has been in the initial pleading stage since June 2018. (See Doc.

2 || 1.) Plaintiff has been given the option to proceed on Count One of his Complaint or file a ||First Amended Complaint by June 22, 2020. (Docs. 52, 55, 57.) Granting a stay at this 4 will only serve to further protract the initial pleading stage which has been ongoing || for the past two years. At the same time, however, the Court is cognizant of the ongoing || COVID-19 pandemic and movement restriction guidelines applicable to inmates at California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation facilities. As such, the Court sua sponte grants Plaintiff an additional ninety (90) days of leave to file a First Amended || Complaint.

10 Finally, to the extent Plaintiff requests the Court to set a settlement disposition ||conference, the Court declines to do so at this time. It is presently unclear whether Plaintiff || will proceed on Count One of his Complaint or file a First Amended Complaint. As such, 13 Court-initiated settlement conference is premature.

14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 Accordingly, the Court: 16 (1) DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Stay; and 17 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff an extension of time to file a First Amended Complaint.

18 || Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint within ninety (90) days of the date this Order |lis filed. Plaintiff is CAUTIONED that if he does not file a First Amended Complaint || within ninety (90) days of the date this Order is filed or show good cause for an ||extension of time to amend prior to the expiration of the time to amend, the Court will || proceed with this action on Count One of the Complaint only. Should Plaintiff choose || to file a First Amended Complaint, it must be complete in and of itself, comply with Federal || Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), and any claim not re-alleged or any Defendant not re-named || will be considered waived. See CIVLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Fiender || & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the || original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Co., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that claims || dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged in an amended pleading may be || “considered waived if not repled.”)

3 IT ISSO ORDERED.

4 ||DATE: June 17, 2020 6 HON. RUTH BE EZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE .