Green v. Lizarraga

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 22-cv-1175-DMS-MMP COREY LAVELLE GREEN,

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING IN PART 14 M. LIZARRAGA; J. GALINDO; and E. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY MONTEJANO, 15 PROCEEDINGS Defendants. 16

17 18 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings of this Section 19 1983 civil rights action pending resolution of a related criminal case. (Defs.’ Mot. to Stay, 20 ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff filed an opposition (ECF No. 35) to which Defendants replied (ECF 21 No. 36). United States Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit submitted a Report and 22 Recommendation to the undersigned district judge recommending that the Court grant in 23 part Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings. (R. & R., ECF No. 39.) No party filed an 24 objection. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part 25 Defendants’ motion and enters a temporary stay of proceedings in this action. 26 I. BACKGROUND 27 Plaintiff, Corey Lavelle Green (“Plaintiff” or “Green”), a state prisoner proceeding 28 pro se, alleges that Defendants M. Lizarraga, J. Galindo, and E. Montejano (“Defendants”), 1 three correctional officers at Centinela State Prison in Imperial County, California, used 2 excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment during a cell extraction that took 3 place on December 22, 2020. (Compl. at 3, ECF No. 1.) Defendants allegedly slammed a 4 shield into Green’s face, punched Green’s face, put Green in a chokehold, and caused loss 5 of breath and damage to the blood vessels in Green’s eyes. (Id.) Plaintiff filed the present 6 civil case on August 10, 2022. (See id.) On April 18, 2023, the California Attorney 7 General’s office filed criminal charges against Green in Imperial County Superior Court 8 relating to the same conduct at issue in this civil case. The complaint charged Green with 9 “(1) battering Officer M. Lizarraga; (2) custodial possession of a weapon; and (3) three 10 counts of resisting an executive officer.” (Information, Ex. A, ECF No. 32-2.) See People 11 v. Green, No. JCF006108, (Cal. Super. Ct. Imperial Cnty. Apr. 18, 2023) (information). 12 On August 23, 2023, Defendants filed the present motion to stay proceedings in this 13 civil action pending resolution of the state criminal case. (ECF No. 32.) Defendants argue 14 that a stay is warranted because (1) Green’s claims may be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 15 512 U.S. 477 (1994), if he is convicted, (2) collateral estoppel may preclude Green from 16 relitigating certain factual issues that would be necessarily determined in the criminal case, 17 and (3) a stay would avoid any Fifth Amendment issues that may arise during discovery. 18 On September 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 35.) On October 11, 2023, 19 Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 36.) On November 28, 2023, United States Magistrate 20 Judge Michelle M. Pettit submitted a Report and Recommendation to the undersigned 21 district judge recommending that the Court grant in part Defendants’ motion to stay 22 proceedings. (R & R, ECF No. 39.)1 Judge Pettit set December 12, 2023, as the deadline 23 for any party to file an objection to the Report and Recommendation. (See R. & R. at 12, 24 allowing either party to file a written objection “[w]ithin fourteen (14) days from the date 25 of service” of the Report and Recommendation.) No party has filed an objection. 26 27 28 1 While this motion was pending, the Imperial County Superior Court scheduled the 2 jury trial in Green’s criminal case to begin on January 17, 2024. See People v. Green, No. 3 JCF006108, (Cal. Super. Ct. Imperial Cnty. Dec. 19, 2023) (docket entry). 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 A. Whether Motion to Stay Proceedings is “Dispositive” 6 “The power of federal magistrate judges is limited by 28 U.S.C. § 636.” Estate of 7 Conners ex rel. Meredith v. O’Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Reynaga v. 8 Cammisa, 971 F.2d 414, 416 (9th Cir. 1992). “[A] magistrate judge may not issue binding 9 rulings on case-dispositive matters without the parties’ consent.” CPC Patent Techs. Pty 10 Ltd. v. Apple, Inc., 34 F.4th 801, 807 (9th Cir. 2022). “Dispositive matters are those listed 11 in section 636(b)(1)(A), as well as ‘analogous’ matters.” Mitchell v. Valenzuela, 791 F.3d 12 1166 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Flam v. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 2015)).2 “To 13 determine whether a motion is dispositive,” the Ninth Circuit has “adopted a functional 14 approach that ‘look[s] to the effect of the motion, in order to determine whether it is 15 properly characterized as dispositive or non-dispositive of a claim or defense of a party.’” 16 Flam, 788 F.3d at 1046 (quoting United States v. Rivera-Guerrero, 377 F.3d 1064, 1068 17 (9th Cir. 2004)) (alteration in original). A motion is dispositive if a ruling on the motion 18 could “dispose of any claims or defenses,” “effectively deny . . . any ultimate relief sought,” 19 S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1260 (9th Cir. 2013), or could “put the 20 parties ‘effectively out of federal court,’” Mitchell, 791 F.3d at 1173 (quoting Flam, 788 21 F.3d at 1047). 22 23

24 25 2 In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) provides: [A] judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter 26 pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made 27 by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can 28 1 Applying this precedent, the Court concludes that Defendants’ motion to stay 2 proceedings here is “dispositive” and the magistrate judge properly submitted a report and 3 recommendation on the motion. Whether a motion to stay proceedings is “dispositive” is 4 a context-specific question. Compare CMKM Diamonds, 729 F.3d at 1260 (defendant’s 5 motion to stay proceedings in a civil action was non-dispositive where defendant argued 6 he “might have stronger evidence to support his position in the civil proceedings if he was 7 able to go through the criminal proceedings first” because denial of the stay neither 8 “dispose[d] of any claims or defenses” nor “effectively den[ied] him any ultimate relief 9 sought”) with Reynaga, 971 F.2d at 417 (defendant’s motion to stay proceedings was 10 dispositive where magistrate concluded that the remedy pro se prisoner sought through 42 11 U.S.C. § 1983 was available only through habeas corpus and granted a stay to allow pro se 12 prisoner to exhaust his state remedies, because such a stay “was in essence an involuntary 13 dismissal” of the section 1983 action). Here, Defendants seek a stay of this civil action 14 pending the resolution of People v. Green because they argue (1) Green’s claims may be 15 barred by Heck v. Humphrey if he is convicted,3 (2) collateral estoppel may preclude Green 16 from relitigating certain factual issues that would be necessarily determined in the criminal 17 case, and (3) a stay would avoid any Fifth Amendment issues that may arise during 18 discovery. For the reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation, this Court agrees 19 that there is some possibility that some or all of Green’s claims may be barred by Heck or 20 collateral estoppel if this civil action is stayed pending resolution of Green’s criminal case 21 and Green is convicted. Thus, a decision to grant Defendants’ motion to stay could have 22 the effect of “dispos[ing] of” some of Green’s claims, CMKM Diamonds, 729 F.3d at 1260, 23 or could “put the parties ‘effectively out of federal court,’” Mitchell, 791 F.3d at 1173 24 25

26 3 In Heck, the Supreme Court held that “a state prisoner’s claim for damages is not cognizable under 42 27 U.S.C. § 1983 if ‘a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence,’ unless the prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has previously 28 1 (quoting Flam, 788 F.3d at 1047), by making it such that state court proceedings effectively 2 resolve some or all of Green’s claims. 3 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings here is a “dispositive” matter 4 and the magistrate judge properly entered a report and recommendation on this matter 5 subject to the de novo review of the district judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 6 B. Merits 7 “A district judge ‘may accept, reject, or modify’” a magistrate judge’s recommended 8 disposition. In re Oh, No. 22-mc-1649-DMS-DDL, 2023 WL 4047588, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 9 Apr. 28, 2023) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)). “The district judge must ‘make a de novo 10 determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.’” Campuzano 11 v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 20-CV-721-WQH-WVG, 2021 WL 3848164 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 12 27, 2021) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). “However, the district judge need not review 13 de novo those portions of a report and recommendation” to which no party objects. Lisa 14 D. v. Kijakazi, No. 22-CV-00695-DMS-MSB, 2023 WL 5836983 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2023). 15 As noted above, no party has filed an objection here. The Court has reviewed the Parties’ 16 filings and the Report and Recommendation, and finds the Report and Recommendation to 17 be correct, well-reasoned, and thorough. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and 18 Recommendation in full, with only slight modifications as specified below. 19 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 20 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ motion to 21 stay proceedings pending resolution of the state criminal case; and ORDERS as follows: 22 1. The Court STAYS all proceedings in this case through the conclusion of the 23 criminal trial in People v. Green, No. JCF006108, (Cal. Super. Ct. Imperial 24 Cnty.), or until February 2, 2024. 25 2. The Parties shall file a status report promptly following the conclusion of the state 26 criminal trial, or no later than February 2, 2024. In their status report, the Parties 27 shall inform the Court of the status or resolution of the criminal trial and their 28 positions on whether the stay should be extended. I IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 Dated: December 28, 2023 2» A frn Yn . I 5 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28