(PC) Taylor v. Jiminez

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SHAUNTAE TAYLOR, Case No. 1:19-cv-00068-JLT-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY CASE PROCEEDINGS 13 v. (ECF No. 85) JIMINEZ, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Shauntae Taylor (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Jimenez, Rodriguez, Huckleberry, Rye, and Hernandez for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

21 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s May 24, 2024 motion to stay case proceedings pending the Circuit Court’s Ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to the Ninth Circuit filed May 20, 2024.

23 (ECF No. 85.) Defendants have not yet had the opportunity to file a response, but the Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

25 The 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 (1997) (citing Landis v. N. Amer.

27 Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of establishing the need to stay the action. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708.

1 Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing the need to stay this action. Plaintiff has not provided a case number for any pending Ninth Circuit case related to this action, a description of the motion filed with the Ninth Circuit, or explained why the motion requires a stay of this action. (ECF No. 85.) Therefore, the Court cannot find that there is any need to stay the action, or any indication that Plaintiff filed any motion with the Ninth Circuit that would prevent the Court from proceeding with the instant action.

7 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to stay case proceedings (ECF No. 85), is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated: May 28, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE