Welch v. Minor

1 || AARON D. FORD Attorney General 2 ||LEO T. HENDGES (Bar No. 16034) Senior Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 ||555 E. Washington Ave., Ste. 3900 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 5 (702) 486-3795 (phone) (702) 486-3773 (fax) 6 || Email: lhendges@ag.nv.gov 7 || Attorneys for Defendants Keith Benson, Steven Klomp, 8 || Kelli Lyons, and Louisa Sanders [9] 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 || KENTRELL D. WELCH, Case No. 2:19-cv-00480-CDS-BNW 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ®ROPOSED 14 || v. ORDER FOR STAY OF CASE PENDING EARLY 15 || MICHAEL MINOR, et ail., EXHAUSTION MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 16 Defendants. [FIRST REQUEST] [17] 18 The parties, Plaintiff Kentrell D. Welch acting pro se, and Defendants by and 19 || through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate to stay the case, pending resolution of an 20 || Early Exhaustion Motion for Summary Judgment that Defendants plan to file, based on 21 || Plaintiffs administrative grievance history. This is the parties’ first stipulation to stay the 22 || case. 23 “A court's power to stay proceedings is incidental to its inherent power to manage its 24 || docket.” Stephens v. Comenity, LLC, 287 F.Supp.3d 1091, 1096 (D. Nev. 2017); citing 25 || Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). “In determining whether a stay is 26 || appropriate, a court ‘must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Id. 27 || at 1097; citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55 ; see also Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098 , 28 ||1110 (9th Cir. 2005). “These competing interests include: (1) possible damage resulting Page 1 of 2 1 || from granting a stay; (2) hardship or inequity to a party if the proceedings go forward; and 2 simplification or complication of issues, proof and questions of law from a stay.” Id.; 3 || citing CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 4 As discovery has not commenced, neither party will be prejudiced with a stay in this 5 |lcase. The parties stipulate and agree that this case should be stayed pending the outcome 6 |lof Defendants’ Early Motion for Summary Judgment based on exhaustion. Defendants’ 7 ||Early Motion for Summary Judgment based on Exhaustion shall be filed on or before 8 ||Monday, December 18, 2023, which is roughly thirty (30) days after the date of this 9 || stipulation and proposed order. 10 || DATED this f>. day of November, 2023. DATED this 9th day of November, 2023 11 AARON D. FORD 7 eee Attorney General 13 || By: ; Le taf } J ( By: /s/ Leo T. Hendges KENTRELL D. WELCH 77 LEO T. HENDGES (Bar No. 16034) 14 || Plaintiff, Pro Se Senior Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants [16] 17 ORDER 18 Upon Stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, it is hereby 19 || ORDERED the case is stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ Early Exhaustion Motion 20 || for Summary Judgment. If the Defendants fail to file the Motion on or before December 18, 21 || 2028, the stay will be lifted. 22 Dated: November 14, 2023 [24] 25 UNI STATES DISTRICT JUDGE [28] Page 2 of 2