Shade v. Stanish, 1:18-CV-1429 (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20191101e36
Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER , District Judge . AND NOW, this 28th day of October, 2019, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion (Doc. 58) for a stay of litigation or for an indefinite extension of time, wherein he requests that the court stay this matter because he is "substantially behind" with preparing his legal documents due to limited access to the law library ( id. at 2), and the alleged deprivation of adequate stationery, photocopies, and postage ( id. at 2-3), and in light of th
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER , District Judge . AND NOW, this 28th day of October, 2019, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion (Doc. 58) for a stay of litigation or for an indefinite extension of time, wherein he requests that the court stay this matter because he is "substantially behind" with preparing his legal documents due to limited access to the law library ( id. at 2), and the alleged deprivation of adequate stationery, photocopies, and postage ( id. at 2-3), and in light of the..
More
ORDER
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 28th day of October, 2019, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion (Doc. 58) for a stay of litigation or for an indefinite extension of time, wherein he requests that the court stay this matter because he is "substantially behind" with preparing his legal documents due to limited access to the law library (id. at 2), and the alleged deprivation of adequate stationery, photocopies, and postage (id. at 2-3), and in light of the fact that the plaintiff continues to file numerous documents with the court, and that dispositive motions are pending in this matter (Docs. 44, 52), and the court finding in the exercise of its discretion that no stay should issue in this matter, see In Re Shawley, 238 F. App'x 765, 767 (3d Cir. 2007) ("District Courts are vested with discretion in managing their dockets") (citing In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982)); Landis v. North American Company, 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (holding that district courts have the power to stay proceedings when judicial economy or other interests may require), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 58) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
