1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 FIDEL C. RIVERA III, Case No.: 21-cv-213-MMA (AGS) 11

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

12 Plaintiff, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND v. AND JOINT MOTION TO STAY 13 ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK B. [Doc. No. 13] 14 GARLAND, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On July 29, 2021, Plaintiff Fidel C. Rivera III (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant 19 Department of Justice Attorney General Merrick B. Garland (“Defendant”) filed a joint 20 motion to stay this action. Plaintiff also seeks leave to file an amended complaint. 21 Plaintiff’s request is unopposed to date. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 22 GRANTS the parties’ joint motion to stay and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 23 file an amended complaint. 24 I. MOTION TO STAY 25 “A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court.” 26 Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis v. N. Am. 27 Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the 28 power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with 1 economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 2 254. A district court may stay a case “pending resolution of independent proceedings 3 which bear upon the case,” even if those proceedings are not “necessarily controlling of 4 the action before the court.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863– 5 64 (9th Cir. 1979) (citations omitted). 6 As an initial matter, there is no apparent damage, hardship, or inequity that would 7 result from granting a stay. See Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110 (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 8 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (identifying the Landis factors)). To the contrary, 9 staying the matter would conserve judicial resources, as well as simplify and streamline 10 the issues in this case. All of Plaintiff’s claims stem from alleged discrimination, 11 harassment, and retaliation he endured at MCC San Diego. Plaintiff is currently pursuing 12 additional, yet related, claims that are still pending in administrative proceedings. 13 Plaintiff’s additional claims are based upon the same or intertwined facts and witnesses. 14 The Court agrees with the parties that proceeding with this case would therefore result in 15 duplicative discovery, added complexity, and increased costs of litigation. Accordingly, 16 Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion to stay. 17 II. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 18 Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that leave to amend 19 pleadings “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; see also 20 Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting 21 leave to amend should be granted with “extreme liberality”); Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil 22 Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989) (first citing DCD Programs, Ltd. 23 v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987); and then citing United States v. Webb, 24 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)). 25 Because Plaintiff’s additional claims are still pending, he has not yet exhausted his 26 administrative remedies as to them. Accordingly, once Plaintiff obtains a Final Agency 27 Decision, he may wish to amend his complaint to include the additional claims to the 28 extent they are not fully resolved. l Defendant does not object to Plaintiff's request. Moreover, there is no indicia of 2 faith, undue delay, prejudice, or futility. See Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 3 || (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995)); see also 4 || Ascon Props., 866 F.2d at 1160 (citing DCD Programs, Ltd., 833 F.2d at 186); 5 || McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 809 (9th Cir. 1988). This case is still in its 6 ||infancy and will be stayed pending resolution of the administrative proceedings. 7 || Accordingly, the Court finds good cause and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for leave to 8 || file an amended complaint, if any, upon conclusion of the aforementioned administrative 9 || proceedings and subsequent lifting of the stay of this action. 10 IH. CONCLUSION 11 For the foregoing reasons the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion to stay and 12 || GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The Court further 13 || DIRECTS Plaintiff to notify this Court within five (5) business days of the conclusion of 14 || the administrative proceedings, requesting to lift the stay and indicating whether he 15 || intends to file an amended complaint. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: August 3, 2021 18 Miku lM - (irhlr 19 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 50 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28