White et al v. Bindler et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SCOTTY LEE WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUSAN E. BINDLER, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-08605-JST
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY
Re: ECF No. 51
On February 3, 2026, Plaintiff Scotty White filed a motion requesting the Court to issue a
stay pending resolution of the pending the reopening of the Merits Systems Protection Board and
“resolution of jurisdictional issues related to alleged clerk misconduct.” ECF No. 51 at 1–2.
District courts have inherent power to stay proceedings in order to “control the disposition
of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for
litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). A court, in evaluating a motion to
stay, must weigh the competing interests at stake. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.
1962). Among the competing interests are: (1) the possible damage that may result from a stay; (2)
the hardship or inequity a party may suffer by being required to proceed; and (3) the stay’s
potential effect on the orderly course of justice, measured in terms of simplifying or complicating
issues, proof, and questions of law. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir.
2005). The burden is on the movant to show that a stay is appropriate. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S.
681, 708 (1997).
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 4:25-cv-08605-JST Document 52 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
White has not demonstrated why a stay is merited. Neither the MSPB proceedings related
to White’s employment in Missouri nor White’s spurious allegations of misconduct by Clerk’s
Office employees provide grounds for a stay in this case. The Court will deny the motion for a
stay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 4, 2026
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-08605-JST Document 52 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 2