ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff has filed a notification that was docketed as a Motion to Stay. ECF No. 49. Plaintiff is proceeding in pro se, and the matter was accordingly referred to the magistrate judge by E.D. Cal. R. ("Local Rule") 302(c)(21).
I. MOTION AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiff apparently seeks to "put a hold" on this case, on the grounds that he is presently incarcerated. ECF No. 49 at 2. Plaintiff presents no argument for a stay except for stating the fact that he is in jail.
A district court has the ability to stay proceedings, or stop action in a case, as part of its inherent power to "control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants."
Here, plaintiff presented no argument to justify a stay of proceedings except for the fact that he is incarcerated. The court finds that the fact of incarceration does not, by itself, warrant a stay. Plaintiff's motion to stay is denied.
II. PRO SE PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY
The court gets to decide whether or not to stop action in a case. The court is denying your request to put a hold on this case, because being in jail does not prevent you from litigating. If being in jail makes it difficult for you to meet a particular deadline, you may file a request for extension of time.
Plaintiff's motion to stay, ECF No. 49, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.