Thomas v. Aguirre

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Plaintiff Edward Thomas’s motion for a Rhines stay, concluding that such a stay is not appropriate in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted Thomas a 60-day extension from service of the order to file a third amended complaint and cautioned that failure to comply could result in dismissal.

Holdings

1. A Rhines stay is not appropriate in a civil rights action because the stay-and-abeyance procedure applies to habeas corpus proceedings, not § 1983 actions.
2. Plaintiff was entitled to a 60-day extension to file a third amended complaint because his anticipated surgery and recovery appeared to require additional time.
3. Plaintiff had no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this § 1983 action, and the circumstances presented did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting a request for voluntary counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

Questions Presented

1. Whether a Rhines stay or comparable Kelly stay is available in this § 1983 civil rights action.
2. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to additional time to comply with the court's screening order.
3. Whether Plaintiff had a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel under the circumstances presented.

Disposition

other