Cejas

Cejas v. Paramo

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaApril 27, 20203:14-cv-01923California437 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 ANDREW A. CEJAS, Case No.: 14-cv-1923-WQH-WVG

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v. DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, et al., 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 …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.