Floyd v. Santa Clara County District Attorney

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 MICHAEL DEVIN FLOYD, Case No. 23-cv-02754-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE PARTIES’ STATUS 9 v. REPORTS; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS 10 SANTA CLARA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, et al., [Re: ECF 45, 46, 48] Defendants. a 12

Plaintiff Michael Devin Floyd sues the Santa Clara County District Attorney and others for

v 14 || violating his civil rights in connection with an ongoing criminal prosecution. The Court stayed the © 15 || case pending resolution of those criminal proceedings. On August 21, 2024, the parties filed Q 16 || Status Updates (ECF 45, 46) at the Court’s request, advising that the criminal proceedings against

= 17 || Plaintiff are ongoing. Accordingly, this case will REMAIN STAYED. Z 18 On August 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Status Update (ECF 48), asking this 19 || Court to (1) remove his state criminal proceedings to federal court and (2) set a deadline for 20 || resolution of the state criminal proceedings. This Court lacks jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff’s 21 || requests, which therefore are DENIED. See Torres-Nevarez v. Thornell, No. CV-23-02100-PHX- 22 SRB (DMEF), 2024 WL 1213989, at *4 (D. Ariz. Feb. 29, 2024) (“[F]ederal district courts have no 23 || direct authority or jurisdiction over original state criminal proceedings[.]”); Jimison v. Idaho, No. 24 || 1:22-CV-00292-BLW, 2022 WL 2953649, at *1 (D. Idaho July 26, 2022) (“[A] plaintiff cannot 25 remove a criminal case to federal court.’’). 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 || Dated: August 23, 2024 Lis WL (Oh @ | BETH LABSON FREEMAN 28 United States District Judge