United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Ricky L. McDeid, Plaintiff,
Nancy Johnston, CEO/Director, Minnesota Sex Offender Program MSOP, Emily Johnson Piper, Commissioner of Human Services, and Lori Swanson, The Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, Defendants.
L. McDeid, MSOP, (pro se Plaintiff); and
John Derrick, Minnesota Attorney General (for Defendants).
N. Leung United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Ricky L.
McDeid's "Motion for Referral to the Federal Bar
Association Pro Se ProjecC (ECF No. 8); "Motion
for a Stay of These Proceedings Until an Outcome of
Karsjens v. Piper, 845 F.3d 394, 08 [sic] (8[th]
Cir. 2017) Has Been Decided" (ECF No. 21); and letter
request for an extension of time (ECF No. 25).
Pro Se Project Referral
requests that he be referred to the Pro Se Project, a program
of the Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Association where
volunteer lawyers donate their time to assist unrepresented
individuals. Plaintiffs request is granted. Plaintiff should
bear in mind that, while one of the Pro Se Project's
volunteer lawyers may agree to represent him, there is no
requirement that a volunteer lawyer do so or that any lawyer
be appointed to assist him.
Motion to Stay
Plaintiff requests that this matter be stayed pending the
resolution of an appeal filed in Karsjens v. Piper,
No. 11-cv-3659 (DWF/TNL). Plaintiff states that "[a]t
the core of the Karsjens v. Piper recent Appeal
above is the Plaintiff[']s argument," and
"until the above appeal has been heard and decided by
the 8[th] Circuit Court of Appeals [i]n Karsjens v.
Piper, it would be detrimental for the present matter to
move forward." (Mot. to Stay at 1.) Defendants oppose
the requested stay. (See generally Defs.' Mem.
in Opp'n, ECF No. 22.)
power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent
in every court to control the disposition of the causes on
its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants." Cottrell v. Duke,
737 F.3d 1238, 1248 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting Landis v. N.
Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)); see Sierra Club
v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 446 F.3d 808,
816 (8th Cir. 2006); Lunde v. Helms, 898 F.2d 1343,
1345 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). "While the
Court's inherent power to manage its docket places this
decision within the Court's broad discretion, '[t]he
proponent of the stay bears the burden of establishing its
need.'" KKMotors, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
No. 98-cv-2307 (JRT/RLE), 1999 WL 246808, at *2 (D.
Minn. Feb. 23, 1999) (alteration in original) (quoting
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997));
accord Stratasys, Inc. v. Microboards Tech., LLC,
No. 13-cv-3228 (DWF/TNL), 2015 WL 1608344, at *l (D. Minn.
Apr. 10, 2015) ("The burden of establishing that a stay
is appropriate is with the party seeking the stay.").
Stays are the exception rather than the rule.
KKMotors, 1999 WL 246808, at *2; see In re
Wholesale Grocery Prods. Antitrust Litig., No.
09-md-2090 (ADM/AJB), 2013 WL 6533154, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec.
13, 2013) (noting "the Supreme Court has counseled
moderation" in the use of stays).
not clear to this Court the precise basis on which Plaintiff
requests that this matter be stayed. While Plaintiff cites
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in
Karsjens v. Piper, 845 F.3d 394 (8th Cir. 2017),
rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied by the Eighth
Circuit on February 22, 2017, and the United States Supreme
Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari on October
2, 2017, 138 S.Ct. 106 (2017). Plaintiff also states that,
"[o]n or about December 20, 2018 . . .," an appeal
was filed with the Eighth Circuit "from the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota."
(Mot. to Stay at 1.) As best as this Court is able to tell,
Plaintiff may actually be referring to a pending appeal filed
near the end of October 2018 from the district court's
decision in Karsjens v. Piper, 336 F.Supp.3d 974 (D.
Minn. Aug. 23, 2018), appeal filed, No. 18- 3343
(8th Cir.). (See ECF No. 1118 in No.
11-cv-3659.) Plaintiff has not, however, connected any of the
issues in his case to the pending appeal in the
Karsjens matter. Plaintiff has not met his burden to
show that a stay is appropriate in this case. Therefore,
Plaintiffs motion to stay is denied.
seeks an extension of time to file his response to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 13) "in order to confer with legal
counsel." (ECF No. 25 at 1.) Plaintiffs request for an
extension of time and his memorandum in opposition to
Defendants' motion appear to have been mailed on the same
day, with Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition to
Defendants' motion arriving one day before his letter
request seeking an extension. (See ECF Nos. 24,
24-2, 24-3, 24-4, 25, 25-1.) In his memorandum in opposition,
Plaintiff states that he "has requested ... an extension
of time to confer with legal counsel," but has not yet
been able to do so. (Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n at 1, ECF
No. 24.) In the letter accompanying his memorandum, Plaintiff
states that the filing of his memorandum is "not a
withdrawal" of his extension request. (Ltr., Feb. 26,
2019, ECF No. 24-2; accord ECF No. 24-3.) Defendants
subsequently filed their reply memorandum. (See
generally Defs.' Reply, ECF No. 26).
Court will grant Plaintiffs request in part and give him
until May 13, 2019, to file a supplemental memorandum.
Defendants may then have ...