Jones v. Pierce County Jail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 10 TERRELL E. JONES, CASE NO. 3:19-cv-06241-BHS-JRC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 v. 13 A. MASTRANDEA, 14 Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to “stay.” See Dkt. 10, at 1.

Plaintiff brought this matter under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in December 2019 against Pierce County Jail and “A Mastandrea.” See Dkt. 1. The Court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Dkt. 6. The Court found that plaintiff had stated a claim against defendant Mastandrea in his individual capacity for damages but had otherwise stated no cognizable claims, including no claims against Pierce County Jail upon which relief could be granted. Dkt. 6, at 4–7. Therefore, the Court offered plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint if he wished, to correct the deficiencies. See Dkt. 6, at 7. The Court informed plaintiff that if he failed to take action, the matter would proceed solely on his claims against defendant Mastandrea in his individual capacity. Dkt. 6, at 7.

4 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that included only claims against defendant Mastandrea. Dkt. 7. Then, plaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint to include the “City of Pierce” as a defendant. Dkt. 8. The Court granted his request since plaintiff was entitled to amend as a matter of right and directed plaintiff to file a second amended complaint on the form provided by the Court. Dkt. 9. Instead of providing a second amended complaint, however, plaintiff returned the § 1983 form, blank, and requested to “stay” the “original amended information in suit against [] Mastandrea in his individual capacity.” Dkt. 10, at 1.

11 It is unclear to the Court what relief plaintiff seeks. If plaintiff requests a stay of the litigation (meaning the litigation would be put “on hold”), the Court is unlikely to grant his request since he has provided no basis for a stay and no end point. Indefinite stays are disfavored. See Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007).

16 If plaintiff is seeking to proceed on his amended complaint (Dkt. 7) with claims solely against defendant Mastandrea, however, he may do so. 18 DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF 19 Plaintiff must take action in response to this order on or before May 29, 2020, or this matter may be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff must either (1) explain if he seeks a stay/extension and the basis for his request, or (2) request to proceed on his amended complaint with claims solely against defendant Mastrandea (Dkt. 7), or (3) file a new complaint with claims against the “City of Pierce,” in which case he must comply with the instructions provided in the previous order granting him leave to amend (Dkt. 9).

3 Dated this 29th day of April, 2020.

A J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge