ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RESTRAINING ORDER, GRANTING MOTION FOR LIMITED STAY

THELTON E. HENDERSON, District Judge.

Plaintiff David Maurice Gomez, a state prisoner presently incarcerated at California State Prison-Sacramento (CSP-SAC), filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding incidents that took place at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP), where he was previously incarcerated. On June 20, 2013, the Court referred the case for settlement proceedings before Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas and stayed the case pending the outcome of those proceedings. The case did not settle and, on December 19, 2013, the Court issued an Order for the parties to file case management statements.

On February 7, 2014, the Court issued a Case Management and Scheduling Order which set forth the discovery procedure and briefing schedule for this case. Specifically, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to obtain discovery by serving written questions on six witnesses at SVSP. The Court directed Plaintiff to serve his witness list and written questions on or before February 21, 2014.

On February 12, 2014, Plaintiff was transferred from SVSP to CSP-SAC. On March 12, 2014, the Court issued an Order noting that it was unsure if Plaintiff had received the February 7, 2014 Order and directing the parties to file briefs indicating how they were implementing the Case Management Order.

On March 13, 2014, Defendants filed a brief indicating that they had not received Plaintiff's witness list. On March 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a brief indicating that he could not serve his witness list on Defendants because his witness list and work product for this case were still at SVSP. Plaintiff requested help in receiving his files and an extension of time to serve Defendants with his witness list. On March 24, 2014, Plaintiff again filed a request for help indicating that, on March 18, 2014, he had been transported back to SVSP for court proceedings and was about to be returned to CSP-SAC. Plaintiff stated he was "on road non-stop" and "needs this to stop, for he cannot address this action."

On March 25, 2014 the Court issued this action." Defendants to ensure that Plaintiff received his legal papers. The Court directed Plaintiff to serve his witness list on Defendants within fourteen days from the date he received his legal files.

Also on March 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed another request for help stating that he remained "unable to receive legal mail or property due to constant transportation." Subsequently, on April 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request for extension of time to serve his witness list "because of constant transportation." Plaintiff again indicated that he had been transported back to SVSP on March 18, 2014 so that he could appear at criminal proceedings pending against him in Monterey County Superior Court.

On April 4, 2014, Defendants filed a "notice of compliance" confirming that Plaintiff had received all his property from SVSP. On April 23, 2014 the Court granted Plaintiff a final extension of time to implement the Case Management Order. The Court noted, however, that in light of Plaintiff's representations that ongoing state criminal proceedings were impeding Plaintiff's efforts to litigate this action, the Court would consider a limited stay of this action upon Plaintiff's request.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for a limited stay pending resolution of state criminal proceedings. Plaintiff represents that his criminal trial in Monterey County Superior Court is scheduled for July 2014 and that the trial will require additional transports between CSP-SAC and SVSP. No opposition having been filed thereto, and good cause appearing, Plaintiff's motion for a limited stay is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. The instant action is hereby STAYED. If Plaintiff intends to proceed with his claims, he shall file, within thirty (30) days of the date the criminal proceedings against him have concluded, a motion asking the Court to lift the stay. The Court will then issue a revised case management order.

2. Plaintiff's request for an order directing CSP-SAC mental health staff to stop placing him in a "crisis bed," which is construed as a motion for a restraining order, is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 134.) CSP-SAC mental health staff are not parties to this action and therefore not under the jurisdiction of this Court. Should Plaintiff seek to bring claims for relief based on events occurring at CSP-SAC, he must do so by filing a new civil action in the United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of California, where CSP-SAC is located.

3. The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed a letter addressed to counsel for Defendants in which he submits a proposed settlement. (Dkt. No. 138.) Nothing in this Order prevents the parties from exchanging settlement offers during the stay. The parties should jointly notify the Court if they are interested in participating in further settlement proceedings before Judge Vadas.

4. The clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of Docket Nos. 133, 135, and 136, per Plaintiff's request. (Dkt. No. 137.)

5. The Clerk is further directed to ADMINSTRATIVELY CLOSE the case pending the stay. This has no legal effect; it is purely a statistical procedure.

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 134 and 137.

IT IS SO ORDERED.