Opinion
Case Number C 05-00426 JF.
January 22, 2007
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS [re: docket no. 81]
This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.
Plaintiff Joseph Jones, proceeding pro se, moves to stay proceedings pending exhaustion of his appeals of his conviction in state court for resisting arrest and battery. Defendants Robert McGee and City of Pacific Grove oppose the motion. For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 14, 2006, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The Court found that a portion of the proposed complaint was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Additionally, the Court concluded that the proposed complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support the claims not barred by Heck. The Court denied the motion without prejudice to a future motion for leave to amend and ordered that Plaintiff file any such motion by December 20, 2006.
On November 17, 2006, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. On December 22, 2006, the Court issued an order stating that it would take the instant motion under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b) and setting a briefing schedule for any motion for leave to amend in the event that it denied the instant motion.
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks a stay "pending the final outcome of his criminal appeals and habeas corpus." Reply 1. The duration of such a stay is unknown and could be very lengthy. The Court concludes that a stay is not in the interest of judicial economy and that denial of a stay will not cause significant prejudice to either party. The Court recognizes that the criminal judgment against Plaintiff remains under appeal and expresses no opinion as to its merit. If an appeal or other post-conviction relief renders the judgment invalid at a later date, Plaintiff can take appropriate legal action at that time. However, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to maintain an ongoing case in this Court rather than dismiss the matter voluntarily, he must do so in a way that is not overly burdensome to the Court's docket. Plaintiff has cited no authority indicating that he has a right to stay this case. Accordingly, having considered the relevant equities and the interest of judicial economy, the Court will deny the motion.
The parties shall abide by the scheduling order issued on November 17, 2006, which provides that Plaintiff shall file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint (along with a copy of the proposed complaint) on or before February 9, 2007. Defendants shall file any opposition on or before February 16, 2007. Plaintiff shall file any reply by February 23, 2007. The Court will hear oral argument on March 2, 2006 at 9.00 a.m. The Court advises Plaintiff that failure to abide by this schedule may lead to dismissal of his case. The Court also advises Plaintiff that any proposed complaint must stay within the bounds described by the Court's order dated November 14, 2006. The Court will not accept a proposed complaint that includes claims barred by Heck v. Humphrey.