1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADAM JAY STONE, No. 1:21-cv-01461-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION OF BILL OF COSTS 13 v. (ECF No. 337) 14 ANDERSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On May 1, 2025, judgment was entered in favor of Defendants following a jury trial on 18 Plaintiff’s excessive force claims. (ECF Nos. 310, 311.) 19 On May 7, 2025, Defendants submitted a bill of costs. (ECF No. 312.) Plaintiff filed 20 objections to the bill of costs on May 23, 2025. (ECF No. 315.) Pursuant to court order, 21 Defendants filed a reply on June 3, 2025. (ECF No. 322.) 22 On June 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal (ECF No. 323.) The notice of appeal 23 was processed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and assigned Case Number 25-3589.1 (ECF 24 Nos. 324, 325.) 25 On June 11, 2025, the Court issued an order taxing counts in the amount of $1,807.50. 26 (ECF No. 327.) 27 On July 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay the execution of the bill of costs pending 28 his appeal. (ECF No. 337.) 1 “A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result. It is 2 instead an exercise of judicial discretion, and the propriety of its issue is dependent upon the 3 circumstances of the particular case.” Nken v. Holder,

(2009) (internal 4 quotation marks and citation omitted); Lasic v. Moreno, No. 2:05-cv-0161-MCE-DAD,

4180655, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2007) (“ “It is within the Court’s discretion to proceed or 6 defer the taxation of costs while an appeal on the merits is pending.”). The question of whether a 7 stay pending appeal is warranted requires consideration of four factors: “(1) whether the stay 8 applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the 9 applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will 10 substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest 11 lies.” Id. at 434. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the first two factors are the most 12 important. Id. 13 Here, Plaintiff contends that he is appealing an “abuse of discretion in failing to appoint 14 counsel and failing to appoint an impartial expert witness.” (ECF No. 337 at 3.) Plaintiff further 15 contends that he “needs to retain his funds to litigate his appeal, Defendants will not suffer 16 irreparable harm if the stay is granted, and there is no “[p]ublic interest simply does not have 17 stake in his $1,807.50 being stayed pending appeal.” (Id. at 3-4.) 18 However, for the reasons outlined by the court in its order denying motion for new trial, 19 Plaintiff has not made a showing of a likelihood of success on appeal, and as a result Plaintiff will 20 not be irreparably injured absent a stay. See Nken v. Holder,

(“It is not enough 21 that the chance of success on the merits be ‘better than negligible.... [M]ore than a mere 22 possibility of relief is required.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). Further, 23 although Plaintiff contends that he needs the funds to litigate his appeal, Plaintiff has failed to 24 establish that he will suffer irreparable harm if a stay is not granted. Further, although an 25 unsecured stay may not prejudice Defendants, the Court finds that the failure to grant the stay is 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 | notin the public interest. In sum, after considering the relevant factors, Plaintiff's request to stay 2 | execution of the bill of costs pending his appeal is DENIED. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. Se 5 | Dated: _December 11, 2025 ; STANLEY A. BOONE 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28