Arellano v. Officer Hodge
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's motion to appoint counsel, which the Pro Bono Panel could not fulfill due to the COVID-19 emergency. The court stayed the action for 90 days and denied the motion to appoint counsel without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Stay of action for 90 days“Accordingly, this action is STAYED for ninety (90) days from the date of this Order.” | agree with court The court correctly identified its inherent authority to stay proceedings to conserve judicial resources, a well-established principle in the Ninth Circuit. The decision to stay the case due to the inability to appoint counsel during a national emergency is a reasonable exercise of discretion. |
Denial of Motion to Appoint Counsel without prejudice“It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 232) is DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court Denying the motion without prejudice is appropriate given that the Pro Bono Panel was unable to appoint counsel due to external circumstances (the pandemic) rather than a lack of merit in the request. Allowing the plaintiff to refile after the stay preserves his rights. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It cites the correct legal standard for inherent stay authority and applies it to the specific factual context of the pandemic and the Pro Bono Panel's limitations. The 90-day timeframe and the option to refile the motion provide a clear path forward for the plaintiff.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL ARELLANO, JR., Case No.: 14-CV-590 JLS (JLB)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER STAYING ACTION 13 v. 14 OFFICER HODGE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On May 15, 2020, Plaintiff Raul Arellano, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 18 filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel (“Mot.,” ECF No. 232). The Pro Bono Panel has been 19 unable to appoint Plaintiff an attorney due to the COVID-19 national emergency. 20 “District courts have inherent authority to stay proceedings before them.” Rohan ex 21 rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803, 817 (9th Cir. 2003), abrogated on other grounds by 22 Ryan v. Gonzales, 568 U.S. 57 (2013). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to 23 the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with 24 economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 25 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). 26 After considering the totality of the circumstances of this litigation, including the 27 stage of litigation, and whether a stay would cause undue prejudice or present a clear 28 disadvantage to Plaintiff, the Court determines that staying the case will best conserve 1 || judicial and party resources. 2 Accordingly, this action is STAYED for ninety (90) days from the date of this Order. 3 || After the ninety-day period, the stay will be lifted and proceedings will resume in this 4 |/Court. It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 232) is 5 DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff MAY REFILE any Motion for Appointment of 6 Counsel within forty-five (45) days after the stay is lifted. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: October 16, 2020 . tt 9 pee Janis L. Sammartino 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28