Arellano, Jr. v. Dean
- 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 standard well-established in federal law. The decision to stay the case due to the inability to appoint counsel during a national emergency is a reasonable exercise of case management discretion. |
Denial of Motion to Appoint Counsel without prejudice“It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 117) is DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court Denying the motion without prejudice is appropriate because the denial is based on the temporary unavailability of the Pro Bono Panel rather than a substantive deficiency in the plaintiff's request. It preserves the plaintiff's right to refile once the stay is lifted. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly cites the inherent authority of district courts to stay cases and applies a 'totality of the circumstances' test, which is the appropriate standard for discretionary stays. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 RAUL ARELLANO, JR., Case No.: 15-CV-2247 JLS (JLB)
13 Plaintiff, ORDER STAYING ACTION 14 v. 15 DR. K. DEAN, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On March 26, 2020, Plaintiff Raul Arellano, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 20 filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel (“Mot.,” ECF No. 117). The Pro Bono Panel has been 21 unable to appoint Plaintiff an attorney due to the COVID-19 national emergency. 22 “District courts have inherent authority to stay proceedings before them.” Rohan ex 23 rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803, 817 (9th Cir. 2003), abrogated on other grounds by 24 Ryan v. Gonzales, 568 U.S. 57 (2013). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to 25 the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with 26 economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 27 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). 28 After considering the totality of the circumstances of this litigation, including the 1 stage of litigation, and whether a stay would cause undue prejudice or present a clear 2 || disadvantage to Plaintiff, the Court determines that staying the case will best conserve 3 || judicial and party resources. 4 Accordingly, this action is STAYED for ninety (90) days from the date of this Order. 5 || After the ninety-day period, the stay will be lifted and proceedings will resume in this 6 ||Court. It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 117) is 7 || DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff MAY REFILE any Motion for Appointment of 8 Counsel within forty-five (45) days after the stay is lifted. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: October 16, 2020 . tt 11 jae Janis L. Sammartino D United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28