FRANCES TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, District Judge
This matter comes before the court because plaintiff, Jacob Cruz, ("Cruz") proceeding pro se, has filed a letter requesting the court "place a hold" on proceedings in the above-captioned matter. The court will construe this as a motion to stay proceedings and deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. FED. R. CIV. P. 78. After considering Cruz's request, the motion to stay proceedings is DENIED.
The authority to stay proceedings lies withing the inherent power of the district court. This power 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." See Rivers v. Walt Disney, 980 F.Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D.Cal. 1997) citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 166 (1936). In order to utilize this discretion the court must engage in "exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance." Id.
Cruz requests a stay, however, he fails to indicate how a delay in the proceedings would be beneficial to himself, defendants or the court. Although, he alleges that he is in contact with certain federal officials in Washington D.C., he does not indicate how such contact and a stay would assist in resolution of the case. Further, the court notes that the federal offices contacted by Cruz are not a party to this litigation and would have no authority to resolve the matter. The court finds that a stay of proceedings is not in the interests of justice or judicial economy and would only serve to unnecessarily delay these proceedings. Accordingly, Cruz's Motion to Stay these proceedings is hereby DENIED. The deadlines imposed by this court in its order of March 2, 2007 remain in full force and effect.
WARNING OF POSSIBLE DISMISSAL
Cruz should take notice that if he fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, or any order entered in this matter, the court will consider dismissing the matter pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F2d. 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.) (district court may dismiss action for failure to comply with any order of the court), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992).
SO ORDERED.