Cejas v. Paramo
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's request for appointment of counsel, which had been referred to the Pro Bono Panel but remained unresolved due to the COVID-19 emergency. The court ordered a sixty-day stay of the action and denied the request for appointment of counsel without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to refile within forty-five days after the stay is lifted.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Stay of action for sixty (60) days“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is stayed for sixty (60) days from the date of this Order.” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that it has broad discretion to stay proceedings to control its docket. The order cites the relevant factors for weighing a stay, including the competing interests of the parties and the orderly course of justice. Given the stated reason (inability of the Pro Bono Panel to select counsel due to the national emergency), a temporary stay is a reasonable exercise of that discretion to avoid unnecessary litigation while the court attempts to resolve the counsel issue. |
Denial of Request for Appointment of Counsel without prejudice“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Request for Appointment of Counsel ECF No. 118) is denied without prejudice to refile.” | agree with court The order states that the Pro Bono Panel was unable to select an attorney due to the COVID-19 emergency. Denying the request without prejudice, with leave to refile after the stay, is a procedural mechanism to manage the docket while acknowledging the plaintiff's right to seek counsel. It does not adjudicate the merits of the need for counsel but rather defers the decision due to external circumstances. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a short, procedural ruling that correctly applies the standard for a stay of proceedings. It cites the appropriate Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authorities regarding the court's discretion to stay cases. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural stay based on administrative necessity (the pandemic). It does not address the substantive merits of the appointment of counsel request, which is appropriate given the 'without prejudice' nature of the denial and the stay.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ANDREW A. CEJAS, Case No.: 14-cv-1923-WQH-WVG 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 HAYES, Judge: 14 On October 1, 2019, Plaintiff Andrew A. Cejas, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 15 filed a Request for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 118). On January 8, 2020, the Court 16 issued an Order referring the case to the Court’s Pro Bono Panel. (ECF No. 125). The Court 17 stated, “Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 118) remains pending.” 18 (Id. at 1). The Pro Bono Panel has been unable to select any attorney suitable for 19 appointment due to the COVID-19 national emergency. 20 A district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings pending before it “to control 21 the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 22 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The power to 23 stay “calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and 24 maintain an even balance.” Id. at 254-55 (citations omitted). “Among these competing 25 interests are the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship 26 or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course 27 of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and 28 1 || questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 2 || F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 3 The Court finds that it is appropriate to stay this action for sixty (60) days. Plaintiff's 4 || Request for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 118) is denied without prejudice and with 5 || leave to refile. Accordingly, 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is stayed for sixty (60) days from the 7 || date of this Order. After the sixty-day period, the stay will be lifted and proceedings will 8 ||resume in this Court. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Request for Appointment of Counsel 10 || ECF No. 118) is denied without prejudice to refile. Plaintiff may file refile any Request 11 Appointment of Counsel within forty-five (45) days after the stay is lifted. 12 |} Dated: April 27, 2020 BME: ie Z. A a 13 Hon. William Q. Hayes 14 United States District Court 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28