From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lull v. Cnty. of Sacramento

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 1, 2021
2:20-CV-00165-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2021)

Opinion

2:20-CV-00165-KJM-CKD

11-01-2021

Christopher Lull, Plaintiff, v. County of Sacramento et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff Lull, acting in pro per, moves to lift the stay imposed by the magistrate judge in December 2020. Order (Dec. 22, 2020), ECF No. 33. For the following reasons, the court denies the motion.

This action is the second of four related cases brought by plaintiff Christopher Lull, the first of which is closed: (1) Lull v. County of Sacramento, No. 16-cv-01093 (E.D. Cal. filed May 20, 2016; closed July 20, 2020) (“Lull I”); (2) Lull v. County of Sacramento, No. 20-cv-00165 (E.D. Cal. filed Jan. 22, 2020) (“Lull II”); (3) Lull v. County of Sacramento, No. 20-cv-1645 (E.D. Cal. filed Aug. 17, 2020) (“Lull III”); and (4) Lull v. County of Sacramento, No. 20-cv-1646 (E.D. Cal. filed Aug. 17, 2020) (“Lull IV”).

In May 2020, the magistrate judge stayed this case pending resolution of defendants' motion for summary judgment in Lull I. Order (May 20, 2020), ECF No. 20. In July 2020, this court granted summary judgment to defendants in Lull I. Lull I Order (July 20, 2020), ECF No. 90. The magistrate judge then lifted the stay in this case, Lull II, to solicit briefing on the effect of the Lull I judgment. Order (July 24, 2020), ECF No. 24. In August 2020, however, plaintiffs filed an appeal in Lull I and moved to amend or alter the judgment. See Mot. Am. J., ECF No. 94; Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 95. The court stayed Lull II again until the motion to alter or amend the judgment was resolved and, in the event “any appeal is sought . . . until such appeal has concluded.” Order (Dec. 22, 2020) at 2. The court denied the motion to amend the judgment in December 2020. Lull I Order (Jan. 4, 2021), ECF No. 107. The appeal in Lull I is pending. See Christopher Lull v. County of Sacramento, No. 20-16599 (9th Cir. filed August 20, 2020), Dkt. No. 44.

A review of the Ninth Circuit docket reflects once this court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the judgment, the Ninth Circuit lifted the stay of appellate proceedings. From a review of the docket, it appears the appellate briefing is completed with the possibility of oral argument pending. Christopher Lull, et al v. County of Sacramento, et al, No. 20-16599 (9th Cir. filed August 20, 2020).

Plaintiff now moves to lift the stay in Lull II , citing several rules. See Mot. at 1, ECF No. 36 (citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(a), 60(b)(2), (3), (5), and (6)). Relief is not warranted under any of these rules. This action and Lull I share many allegations and raise many similar legal issues. Accordingly, it would be a waste of judicial resources to lift the stay before the appeal in Lull I has been resolved. Order (Dec. 22, 2020) at 2. The motion is denied.

This order resolves ECF No. 36.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Lull v. Cnty. of Sacramento

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 1, 2021
2:20-CV-00165-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2021)
Case details for

Lull v. Cnty. of Sacramento

Case Details

Full title:Christopher Lull, Plaintiff, v. County of Sacramento et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 1, 2021

Citations

2:20-CV-00165-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2021)