1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EARNEST S. HARRIS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01800-JLT-SKO (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO OPT OUT OF POST- 13 v. SCREENING ADR 14 E. MUNOZ, et al., ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 15 Defendants. PENDING OUTCOME OF CRIMINAL CASE 16 (Doc. 27) 17
18 19 Plaintiff Earnest S. Harris is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 20 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 I. INTRODUCTION 22 On July 31, 2023, Defendants S. Arrequin and E. Munoz filed an answer to Plaintiff’s 23 complaint. (Doc. 19.) On October 9, 2023, Defendant Romero-Valadez filed an answer to the 24 complaint. (Doc. 22.) 25 On October 11, 2023, the Court issued its Order Referring Case to Post-Screening ADR 26 and Staying Case for 90 Days. (Doc. 24.) The action was stayed for 90 days to provide the 27 parties time to settle their dispute before the discovery process begins. (Id. at 1-2.) The parties were directed to file a notice indicating their agreement to proceed to an early settlement 1 conference or their belief that settlement was not achievable within 45 days. (Id.) 2 On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a noting stating an early settlement conference would 3 be productive and he wished to participate by telephone or video conference. (Doc. 25.) 4 On November 22, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to opt out of early ADR and a motion 5 to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of a criminal case. (Doc. 27.) Plaintiff has not filed 6 an opposition or a statement of non-opposition. 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 Defendants state an investigation into the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint reveals this 9 case “is not a good candidate for early settlement” because it “would not be a productive use of 10 the Court’s and parties’ time and resources.” (Doc. 27 at 1-2.) Defense counsel Jason Torres has 11 investigated Plaintiff’s claims, conferred with Defendants, reviewed “the relevant portions of 12 Plaintiff’s Central File,” and discussed the criminal case against Plaintiff—Kings County 13 Superior Court case number 20CM-1029—with Deputy District Attorney Vicente Reyes, as well 14 as his supervisor. (Id. at 6-7, ¶¶ 3-4, 10.) The events giving rise to this action “relating to 15 Defendant E. Munoz are also the basis of the criminal case.” (Id. at 6, ¶ 4.) The criminal matter 16 that was consolidated with two other actions and proceeding under case number 19CMS-1318 is 17 “ongoing.” (Id. at 6-7, ¶¶ 8, 10.) A trial setting conference is scheduled in the criminal matter for 18 January 29, 2024. (Id. at 6, ¶ 9.) Defendants seek a stay of this action until disposition of the 19 criminal matter. (Id. at 3-5.) Defendants assert Plaintiff’s allegations that Munoz used excessive 20 force by spraying him with pepper spray while Plaintiff was enclosed in his cell, and his 21 allegation that Munoz falsely charged Plaintiff with a rules violation report for battery, gave rise 22 to the pending criminal charge: battery by a prisoner on a non-prisoner in violation of California 23 Penal Code section 4501.5. (Id. at 4-5.) Defendants contend that if Plaintiff is convicted, “at least 24 two of the live claims in this action may be barred under” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 25 (1994), and thus this action should be stayed “until resolution of Plaintiff’s criminal case, which 26 is expected in sometime early next year.” (Id. at 5.) 27 The Motion to Opt-Out of Early ADR 1 Court, within 45 days of an order referring the matter to early ADR, whether the party wishes to 2 participate in an early settlement conference. (See Doc. 24.) Both parties may opt-out or decline 3 to participate; they may both opt-in and agree to participate; or one party may file a notice 4 opting-in or agreeing to participate, while the opposing party may opt-out or decline to 5 participate. 6 Here, while Plaintiff indicated a desire to participate in early ADR proceedings, 7 Defendants have stated that an early settlement conference would not be productive at this time, 8 for reasons discussed more fully below. Because Defendants are not required to participate in an 9 early settlement conference, their motion to opt-out of early ADR proceedings will be granted. 10 The Motion to Stay Pending the Outcome of Criminal Proceedings 11 A. Legal Standards 12 The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 13 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North 14 American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). A stay is discretionary and the “party requesting a stay 15 bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken v. 16 Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433–34 (2009). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” 17 Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066–67 (9th Cir. 2007). 18 If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it. 19 Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court should “balance the length of any 20 stay against the strength of the justification given for it.” Id. 21 “The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the 22 outcome of criminal proceedings.” Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th 23 Cir. 1995). “In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, 24 [simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under our 25 jurisprudence.” Id. “Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings ... 26 ‘when the interests of justice seem[] to require such action.’” Id. (citations omitted). 27 // 1 B. Same Nucleus of Facts 2 When a civil plaintiff brings claims under section 1983 that are “related to rulings that 3 will likely be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial,” it is “common practice” for the 4 court “to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is 5 ended.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393–94 (2007); see also Fed. Saving & Loan Ins. Corp. 6 v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 1989). 7 When determining whether a stay is appropriate, courts look to whether the criminal 8 defendant's Fifth Amendment rights may be implicated by the civil proceedings. Keating, 45 9 F.3d at 324 (citing Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 902). Courts also consider (1) the interest of the 10 plaintiff in proceeding with the litigation and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff of a delay; 11 (2) the convenience of the court and the efficient use of judicial resources; (3) the interests of 12 third parties; and (4) the interests of the public. Keating, 45 F.3d at 324-25. 13 Here, the civil rights action implicates Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment rights. The facts and 14 circumstances underlying Plaintiff's criminal prosecution for battery by a prisoner on a non- 15 prisoner, involving Defendant Munoz, substantially overlaps with the excessive force claim at 16 issue in this case.
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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EARNEST S. HARRIS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01800-JLT-SKO (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO OPT OUT OF POST- 13 v. SCREENING ADR 14 E. MUNOZ, et al., ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 15 Defendants. PENDING OUTCOME OF CRIMINAL CASE 16 (Doc. 27) 17
18 19 Plaintiff Earnest S. Harris is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 20 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 I. INTRODUCTION 22 On July 31, 2023, Defendants S. Arrequin and E. Munoz filed an answer to Plaintiff’s 23 complaint. (Doc. 19.) On October 9, 2023, Defendant Romero-Valadez filed an answer to the 24 complaint. (Doc. 22.) 25 On October 11, 2023, the Court issued its Order Referring Case to Post-Screening ADR 26 and Staying Case for 90 Days. (Doc. 24.) The action was stayed for 90 days to provide the 27 parties time to settle their dispute before the discovery process begins. (Id. at 1-2.) The parties were directed to file a notice indicating their agreement to proceed to an early settlement 1 conference or their belief that settlement was not achievable within 45 days. (Id.) 2 On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a noting stating an early settlement conference would 3 be productive and he wished to participate by telephone or video conference. (Doc. 25.) 4 On November 22, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to opt out of early ADR and a motion 5 to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of a criminal case. (Doc. 27.) Plaintiff has not filed 6 an opposition or a statement of non-opposition. 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 Defendants state an investigation into the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint reveals this 9 case “is not a good candidate for early settlement” because it “would not be a productive use of 10 the Court’s and parties’ time and resources.” (Doc. 27 at 1-2.) Defense counsel Jason Torres has 11 investigated Plaintiff’s claims, conferred with Defendants, reviewed “the relevant portions of 12 Plaintiff’s Central File,” and discussed the criminal case against Plaintiff—Kings County 13 Superior Court case number 20CM-1029—with Deputy District Attorney Vicente Reyes, as well 14 as his supervisor. (Id. at 6-7, ¶¶ 3-4, 10.) The events giving rise to this action “relating to 15 Defendant E. Munoz are also the basis of the criminal case.” (Id. at 6, ¶ 4.) The criminal matter 16 that was consolidated with two other actions and proceeding under case number 19CMS-1318 is 17 “ongoing.” (Id. at 6-7, ¶¶ 8, 10.) A trial setting conference is scheduled in the criminal matter for 18 January 29, 2024. (Id. at 6, ¶ 9.) Defendants seek a stay of this action until disposition of the 19 criminal matter. (Id. at 3-5.) Defendants assert Plaintiff’s allegations that Munoz used excessive 20 force by spraying him with pepper spray while Plaintiff was enclosed in his cell, and his 21 allegation that Munoz falsely charged Plaintiff with a rules violation report for battery, gave rise 22 to the pending criminal charge: battery by a prisoner on a non-prisoner in violation of California 23 Penal Code section 4501.5. (Id. at 4-5.) Defendants contend that if Plaintiff is convicted, “at least 24 two of the live claims in this action may be barred under” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 25 (1994), and thus this action should be stayed “until resolution of Plaintiff’s criminal case, which 26 is expected in sometime early next year.” (Id. at 5.) 27 The Motion to Opt-Out of Early ADR 1 Court, within 45 days of an order referring the matter to early ADR, whether the party wishes to 2 participate in an early settlement conference. (See Doc. 24.) Both parties may opt-out or decline 3 to participate; they may both opt-in and agree to participate; or one party may file a notice 4 opting-in or agreeing to participate, while the opposing party may opt-out or decline to 5 participate. 6 Here, while Plaintiff indicated a desire to participate in early ADR proceedings, 7 Defendants have stated that an early settlement conference would not be productive at this time, 8 for reasons discussed more fully below. Because Defendants are not required to participate in an 9 early settlement conference, their motion to opt-out of early ADR proceedings will be granted. 10 The Motion to Stay Pending the Outcome of Criminal Proceedings 11 A. Legal Standards 12 The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 13 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North 14 American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). A stay is discretionary and the “party requesting a stay 15 bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken v. 16 Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433–34 (2009). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” 17 Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066–67 (9th Cir. 2007). 18 If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it. 19 Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court should “balance the length of any 20 stay against the strength of the justification given for it.” Id. 21 “The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the 22 outcome of criminal proceedings.” Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th 23 Cir. 1995). “In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, 24 [simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under our 25 jurisprudence.” Id. “Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings ... 26 ‘when the interests of justice seem[] to require such action.’” Id. (citations omitted). 27 // 1 B. Same Nucleus of Facts 2 When a civil plaintiff brings claims under section 1983 that are “related to rulings that 3 will likely be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial,” it is “common practice” for the 4 court “to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is 5 ended.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393–94 (2007); see also Fed. Saving & Loan Ins. Corp. 6 v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 1989). 7 When determining whether a stay is appropriate, courts look to whether the criminal 8 defendant's Fifth Amendment rights may be implicated by the civil proceedings. Keating, 45 9 F.3d at 324 (citing Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 902). Courts also consider (1) the interest of the 10 plaintiff in proceeding with the litigation and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff of a delay; 11 (2) the convenience of the court and the efficient use of judicial resources; (3) the interests of 12 third parties; and (4) the interests of the public. Keating, 45 F.3d at 324-25. 13 Here, the civil rights action implicates Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment rights. The facts and 14 circumstances underlying Plaintiff's criminal prosecution for battery by a prisoner on a non- 15 prisoner, involving Defendant Munoz, substantially overlaps with the excessive force claim at 16 issue in this case. Both cases involve the April 13, 2019 incident between Plaintiff and 17 Defendant Munoz, and will likely involve substantially the same parties and witnesses. Thus, if 18 this case proceeds, Defendants will seek discovery from Plaintiff and he will be required to 19 respond under oath. The discovery will involve Plaintiff's alleged misconduct on April 13, 2019. 20 Thus, there exists a substantial risk of prejudice to Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment rights. Plaintiff’s 21 invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights may impede Defendant's discovery. Jones v. Conte, 22 No. C045312S1, 2005 WL 1287017, at *1 (N.D. Apr. 19, 2005) (finding that a stay of the civil 23 case involving defendant in criminal action was appropriate “because [i]f discovery moves 24 forward, [the] defendant will be faced with the difficult choice between asserting [his] right 25 against self-incrimination, thereby inviting prejudice in the civil case, or waiving those rights, 26 thereby courting liability in the civil case”) (internal quotations & citation omitted). 27 The other Keating factors also support a stay. Any prejudice to Plaintiff is minimal given 1 lost, or memories will fade with passage of time. McCormick v. Rexroth, No. C 09-4188 JT, 2 2010 WL 934242, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2010). In addition, the public interest weighs in 3 favor of a stay because “[t]he public has an interest in ‘ensuring that the criminal process is not 4 subverted’ by ongoing civil cases.” Douglas v. United States, No. C 03-4518, 2006 WL 5 2038375, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2006). 6 Furthermore, if a stay is not granted, the defenses available may be limited. If the court in 7 the criminal action considers Plaintiff's factual allegations regarding the April 13, 2019 incident, 8 such findings may be binding in this Court. Until resolution of the criminal proceedings, it is 9 unclear whether certain defenses are available, such as a Heck bar or issue preclusion. See 10 Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393–94 (noting that the question of whether a section 1983 action is barred 11 by Heck is more difficult to answer where the plaintiff is facing charges of resisting arrest or 12 similar conduct arising from the same incident he is claiming excessive force, a stay may be 13 appropriate until such time as the underlying criminal proceedings are conducted; “If the plaintiff 14 is ultimately convicted, and if the stayed civil action would impugn that conviction, Heck will 15 require dismissal; otherwise, the civil action will proceed, absent some other bar to suit”) 16 (citation omitted); see also Vivas v. Cty. of Riverside, No. EDCV 15-1912-VAP (DTBx), 2016 17 WL 9001020, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2016) (staying excessive force case where criminal 18 prosecution for resisting arrest was pending). 19 Judicial efficiency also favors imposition of a stay because Plaintiff's criminal action 20 involves many of the same facts. Accordingly, the Court will stay this action until Plaintiff's 21 criminal charges have been resolved. 22 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 23 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. Defendants’ motion to opt out of early ADR (Doc. 27) is GRANTED; 25 2. Defendants’ motion to stay this action (Doc. 27) is GRANTED; 26 3. The instant action is STAYED pending resolution of Plaintiff’s criminal case; and 27 4. Defendants SHALL file a status report within ninety (90) days from the date of 1 the criminal proceedings until those proceedings are resolved. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3
4 Dated: December 21, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27