1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLAN GONZALEZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-00208-ADA-CDB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR STAY 13 v. 14 (Doc. 5) CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendants City of Bakersfield and Douglas Barrier’s 18 (“Defendants”) motion to stay, together with a request for judicial notice, filed on March 8, 2023. 19 (Doc. 5). Defendants move to stay this civil rights action until a pending criminal matter against 20 Plaintiff Allan Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) concludes. Id. Defendants argue civil proceedings should 21 be stayed based on Younger Abstention, the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, and 22 given the likelihood that Plaintiff will assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in this action. Id. 23 Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendants’ motion, and the time to do so has passed.1 For 24 the foregoing reasons the Court will grant Defendants’ request for a stay. 25 /// 26 ///
27 1 Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion is construed as a non- opposition to dismissal. See Local Rule 230(c) (“A failure to file a timely opposition may also be 1 Discussion 2 A. Request for Judicial Notice 3 Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of the Kern County Superior Court 4 Criminal Docket. (Doc. 5-2). Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits the Court to take judicial 5 notice at any time. A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that 6 it is either: (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, or (2) capable 7 of immediate and accurate and determination by resort to easily accessible sources whose 8 accuracy reasonably cannot be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Courts may take judicial notice 9 of facts related to the case before it. See Amphibious Partners, LLC v. Redman, 534 F.3d 1357, 10 1361-62 (10th Cir. 2008) (district court was entitled to take judicial notice of its memorandum of 11 order and judgment from previous case involving same parties). A court may judicially notice the 12 records and filing of other court proceedings. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 13 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 802 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2002). 14 Additionally, a court may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record, including 15 papers filed with the court and the record of state agencies and administrative bodies. Disabled 16 Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861, 866 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2004). 17 Because the Court may take judicial notice of public records, including duly recorded 18 documents under Rule 201(b)(2), Defendants’ request to take judicial notice of the Kern County 19 Superior Court Criminal Docket is granted. 20 B. Motion to Stay 21 The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 22 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North 23 America Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). A stay is discretionary and the “party requesting a stay 24 bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken v. 25 Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” 26 Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2007). 27 Instead, the Court should “balance the length of any stay against the strength of the justification 1 given for it.” Young v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000) (if a stay is especially long or 2 its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it). 3 “The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending [the 4 outcome] of criminal proceedings.” Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th 5 Cir. 1995). “In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, 6 [simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under our 7 jurisprudence.” Id. “Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil 8 proceedings… ‘when the interests of justice seem to require such action.’” Id. (citations omitted). 9 When a civil plaintiff brings claims under § 1983 that are “related to rulings that will 10 likely be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial,” it is “common practice” for the court 11 “to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended.” 12 Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007); see also Fed. Saving & Loan Ins. Corp. v. 13 Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 1989). 14 When determining whether a stay is appropriate, courts look to whether the criminal 15 defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights may be implicated by the civil proceedings. Keating, 45 16 F.3d at 324 (citing Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 902). Courts also consider (1) the interest of the 17 plaintiff in proceeding with the litigation and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff of a delay, (2) 18 the convenience of the court and the efficient use of judicial resources, (3) the interests of third 19 parties, and (4) the interests of the public. Keating, 45 F.3d at 324-25. 20 In this case, Plaintiff’s civil rights action implicates his Fifth Amendment rights. The 21 facts and circumstances underlying Plaintiff’s criminal prosecution for obstructing/resisting an 22 officer, obstructing/resisting a peace officer, and riding a bicycle under the influence, 23 substantially overlap with Plaintiff’s civil claims at issue in this case. (Docs. 1, 5); Cal. Penal 24 Code §§ 69, 148(A)(1); Cal. Vehicle Code § 21200.5. Both cases involve the April 3, 2022, 25 incident between Plaintiff and Defendant Douglas Barrier and will involve substantially all the 26 same parties and witnesses. Thus, if this case proceeds, Defendants will seek discovery from 27 Plaintiff, and he will be required to respond under oath. The discovery will involve Plaintiff’s 1 Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment rights, and/or Defendants’ ability to obtain discovery while the 2 criminal matter still is pending. Therefore, staying the case makes “[efficient use] of judicial 3 resources by ensuring that common issues of fact will be resolved, and subsequent civil discovery 4 will proceed unobstructed by concerns regarding self-incrimination.” Taylor, Bean & Whitaker 5 Mortg. Corp. v. Triduanum Fin., Inc., No. 2:09-cv-00954-FCD-EFB, 2009 WL 2136986, at *4 6 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2009) (citation and internal quotations omitted). 7 The other Keating factors also support a stay. Any prejudice to Plaintiff is minimal given 8 that both proceedings involve similar facts and witnesses, and it is unlikely that evidence will be 9 lost or memories will fade with the passage of time. McCormick v. Rexroth, No. C 09-4188 JF, 10 2010 WL 934242, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLAN GONZALEZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-00208-ADA-CDB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR STAY 13 v. 14 (Doc. 5) CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendants City of Bakersfield and Douglas Barrier’s 18 (“Defendants”) motion to stay, together with a request for judicial notice, filed on March 8, 2023. 19 (Doc. 5). Defendants move to stay this civil rights action until a pending criminal matter against 20 Plaintiff Allan Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) concludes. Id. Defendants argue civil proceedings should 21 be stayed based on Younger Abstention, the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, and 22 given the likelihood that Plaintiff will assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in this action. Id. 23 Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendants’ motion, and the time to do so has passed.1 For 24 the foregoing reasons the Court will grant Defendants’ request for a stay. 25 /// 26 ///
27 1 Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion is construed as a non- opposition to dismissal. See Local Rule 230(c) (“A failure to file a timely opposition may also be 1 Discussion 2 A. Request for Judicial Notice 3 Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of the Kern County Superior Court 4 Criminal Docket. (Doc. 5-2). Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits the Court to take judicial 5 notice at any time. A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that 6 it is either: (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, or (2) capable 7 of immediate and accurate and determination by resort to easily accessible sources whose 8 accuracy reasonably cannot be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Courts may take judicial notice 9 of facts related to the case before it. See Amphibious Partners, LLC v. Redman, 534 F.3d 1357, 10 1361-62 (10th Cir. 2008) (district court was entitled to take judicial notice of its memorandum of 11 order and judgment from previous case involving same parties). A court may judicially notice the 12 records and filing of other court proceedings. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 13 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 802 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2002). 14 Additionally, a court may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record, including 15 papers filed with the court and the record of state agencies and administrative bodies. Disabled 16 Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861, 866 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2004). 17 Because the Court may take judicial notice of public records, including duly recorded 18 documents under Rule 201(b)(2), Defendants’ request to take judicial notice of the Kern County 19 Superior Court Criminal Docket is granted. 20 B. Motion to Stay 21 The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 22 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North 23 America Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). A stay is discretionary and the “party requesting a stay 24 bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken v. 25 Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” 26 Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2007). 27 Instead, the Court should “balance the length of any stay against the strength of the justification 1 given for it.” Young v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000) (if a stay is especially long or 2 its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it). 3 “The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending [the 4 outcome] of criminal proceedings.” Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th 5 Cir. 1995). “In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, 6 [simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under our 7 jurisprudence.” Id. “Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil 8 proceedings… ‘when the interests of justice seem to require such action.’” Id. (citations omitted). 9 When a civil plaintiff brings claims under § 1983 that are “related to rulings that will 10 likely be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial,” it is “common practice” for the court 11 “to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended.” 12 Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007); see also Fed. Saving & Loan Ins. Corp. v. 13 Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 1989). 14 When determining whether a stay is appropriate, courts look to whether the criminal 15 defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights may be implicated by the civil proceedings. Keating, 45 16 F.3d at 324 (citing Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 902). Courts also consider (1) the interest of the 17 plaintiff in proceeding with the litigation and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff of a delay, (2) 18 the convenience of the court and the efficient use of judicial resources, (3) the interests of third 19 parties, and (4) the interests of the public. Keating, 45 F.3d at 324-25. 20 In this case, Plaintiff’s civil rights action implicates his Fifth Amendment rights. The 21 facts and circumstances underlying Plaintiff’s criminal prosecution for obstructing/resisting an 22 officer, obstructing/resisting a peace officer, and riding a bicycle under the influence, 23 substantially overlap with Plaintiff’s civil claims at issue in this case. (Docs. 1, 5); Cal. Penal 24 Code §§ 69, 148(A)(1); Cal. Vehicle Code § 21200.5. Both cases involve the April 3, 2022, 25 incident between Plaintiff and Defendant Douglas Barrier and will involve substantially all the 26 same parties and witnesses. Thus, if this case proceeds, Defendants will seek discovery from 27 Plaintiff, and he will be required to respond under oath. The discovery will involve Plaintiff’s 1 Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment rights, and/or Defendants’ ability to obtain discovery while the 2 criminal matter still is pending. Therefore, staying the case makes “[efficient use] of judicial 3 resources by ensuring that common issues of fact will be resolved, and subsequent civil discovery 4 will proceed unobstructed by concerns regarding self-incrimination.” Taylor, Bean & Whitaker 5 Mortg. Corp. v. Triduanum Fin., Inc., No. 2:09-cv-00954-FCD-EFB, 2009 WL 2136986, at *4 6 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2009) (citation and internal quotations omitted). 7 The other Keating factors also support a stay. Any prejudice to Plaintiff is minimal given 8 that both proceedings involve similar facts and witnesses, and it is unlikely that evidence will be 9 lost or memories will fade with the passage of time. McCormick v. Rexroth, No. C 09-4188 JF, 10 2010 WL 934242, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 2010). The public interest weighs in favor of a stay because 11 “[t]he public has an interest in ‘ensuring that the criminal process is not subverted’ by ongoing 12 civil cases.” Douglas v. United States, No. C 03-4518, 2006 WL 2038375, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 13 17, 2006) (citation omitted). Similarly, judicial efficiency favors the imposition of a stay because 14 Plaintiff’s action involves many of the same facts. A stay could prevent the unnecessary 15 expenditure of resources and does not prevent Plaintiff from proceeding with his claim when the 16 criminal proceedings are resolved. Moreover, a conviction in the parallel criminal case may be 17 dispositive of the case. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). 18 A stay of proceedings is also warranted under the doctrine of Younger Abstention. Absent 19 extraordinary circumstances, federal courts may not interfere with ongoing state criminal 20 proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971); Sprint Communs., Inc. v. Jacobs, 21 571 U.S. 69, 77 (2013). Abstention is proper regardless of whether the applicant seeks 22 declaratory relief, injunctive relief, or damages. See Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 23 1986) (“When a state criminal prosecution has begun, the Younger rule directly bars a declaratory 24 judgment action” as well as a section 1983 action for declaratory relief and damages “where such 25 an action would have a substantially disruptive effect upon ongoing state criminal proceedings.”); 26 Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 984 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (Younger abstention applies to 27 actions for damages as it does to declaratory and injunctive relief). 1 A court may apply a stay under Younger when: “(1) the state court proceedings are 2 | ongoing; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings 3 | provide an adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional claims.” Escobar v. Doe, No. CV-17- 4 | 7352-DSF (SP), 2017 WL 7050642, at *2 (C.D. Cal. November 30, 2017) (citing Middlesex Cty. 5 || Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)). 6 Here, Plaintiffs criminal case is ongoing and implicates the State of California’s 7 | important interest in ensuring the integrity of its criminal justice system. See Kelly v. Robinson, 8 | 479 US. 36, 49 (1986) (“the [State’s] interest in administering their criminal justice systems free 9 | from federal interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a 10 | court considering equitable types of relief.”) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 44-45); see also People 11 | of State of Cal. v. Mesa, 813 F.2d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A [States] ability to protect its 12 | citizens from violence and other breaches of the peace through enforcement of criminal laws is 13 | the centermost pillar of sovereignty.”). Plaintiff may raise constitutional issues in the state 14 | proceedings. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987) (“a federal court should assume 15 | that state procedures will afford an adequate remedy, in the absence of unambiguous authority to 16 | the contrary.”). Therefore, the principles of judicial comity expressed in Younger counsel in 17 | favor of this Court staying this action until Plaintiff's criminal proceedings have concluded. 18 | Conclusion and Order 19 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 20 1. Defendants’ motion for stay (Doc. 5) is GRANTED; 21 2. The instant action is STAYED pending resolution of Plaintiffs criminal case; and 22 3. Defendants shall file a status report within 90 days from the date of service of this 23 order, and every 60 days thereafter, addressing the status of the criminal proceedings 24 until they are resolved. 25 | IT IS SO ORDERED. °° | Dated: _ April 3, 2023 | hWnd Rr 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 «