1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JORGE M.F.,1 Case No. 21-cv-01434-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 9 v. CASE SHOULD NOT BE STAYED

10 DAVID JENNINGS, et al., Re: ECF No. 29 Defendants. 11

12 13 Before the Court is Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 1. On April 14 14, 2021, this Court granted Petitioner’s motion for a preliminary injunction on the grounds that 15 Petitioner had made the requisite showing of “serious questions going to the merits” of his due 16 process claims. See ECF No. 19. Respondents have appealed that order. ECF No. 29. 17 A district court’s discretion to stay proceedings “is incidental to the power inherent in 18 every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort 19 for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

(1936). 20 Whether to stay proceedings is entrusted to the discretion of the district court. See

254-55 21 (“How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing 22 interests and maintain an even balance.”). 23 In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS THE PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE 24 why this case should not be stayed pending the resolution of Respondents’ appeal of the Court’s 25 preliminary injunction order. The parties are ordered to file simultaneous briefs of no more than 5 26

27 1 The Court partially redacts Plaintiff’s name to mitigate privacy concerns, as suggested by the 1 pages on or before July 21, 2021. If no party files a responsive brief, the Court will stay this case. 2 || The case management conference currently scheduled for September 14, 2021, is hereby 3 || VACATED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: July 7, 2021 6 JON S. TIGAR 7 ited States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28