(PC) Harris v. Munoz

Opinion

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 RE PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY 13 v. PROCEEDINGS PENDING OUTCOME OF CRIMINAL CASE 14 E. MUNOZ, et al., (Doc. 27) 15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff Earnest S. Harris is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 On November 22, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to opt out of early ADR and a motion 21 to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of a criminal case. (Doc. 27.) 22 On December 21, 2023, the Court issued its Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Opt 23 Out of Post-Screening ADR and Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings 24 Pending Outcome of Criminal Case. (Doc. 28.) 25 On December 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion: Opposing a Stay of 26 Proceedings.” (Doc. 29.) 27 // // 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 As noted above, on December 21, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to stay 3 these proceedings pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s criminal case. (See Doc. 28 at 3-5.) Plaintiff 4 filed an opposition on December 26, 2023. 5 In his opposition, Plaintiff contends he “does not want the Attorney General attempting to 6 persuade the criminal case” and the “Attorney General doesn’t understand the reasons why this 7 case has been on-going since Feb. 2020.” (Doc. 29 at 1.) Plaintiff states the matter is not 8 scheduled for trial “and the next court date is Jan. 29, 2024.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts he is “going to 9 Court for 3# separate batteries, on the separate date, all of them are independant [sic] from the 10 case on the Defendant.” (Id. at 2.) He contends “[i]t is not ‘likely’ that these cases are going to 11 trial.” (Id.) Plaintiff states he is “on ‘C-Status’” and unable to earn good time credit but will “get 12 all [his earned] credit” once off C-Status in January 2024, meaning his “release date will change 13 to March 27, 2024.” (Id.) Plaintiff contends he “will parole before this goes to trial” and that 14 “most often, the cases are dismissed, once the person has paroled.” (Id.) He asserts small cities 15 like Hanford do not have “the money to transport [him] back to Hanford from Oakland, Ca.” 16 (Id.) Plaintiff asserts it is “best for the Defendants to settle the claims now” before he paroles in 17 March 2024, “[a]t least on the claims that are not against E. Munoz. $30,000 for part, $80,000 18 for entire case.” (Id.) 19 Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), any opposition “to the granting of [a] motion shall be 20 served and filed by the responding party not more than twenty-one (21) days after the date of 21 service of the motion.” Because Defendants filed and served their motion on November 22, 22 2023, any opposition by Plaintiff was due to be filed no later than December 13, 2023. Local 23 Rule 131(b) provides, in relevant part, that all pleadings “be signed by the individual attorney for 24 the party …, or by the party involved if that party is appearing in propria persona.” (Italics 25 added.) 26 Here, Plaintiff’s opposition is not dated or signed. (See Doc. 29.) It was filed 34 days 27 after the date Defendants filed their motion. Additionally, the Court notes the proof of service 1 same proof of service for a prior filing but did not change or correct the date for the opposition. 2 (Id.) In sum, because Plaintiff’s opposition is not signed or dated, and the date on the proof of 3 service is plainly inaccurate, Plaintiff’s opposition is deemed untimely. 4 Even assuming the opposition was timely, it does not warrant the denial of Defendants’ 5 motion to stay these proceedings. As explained in the Order granting Defendants’ motion, the 6 Court finds the same nucleus of facts apply to this action and to the criminal prosecution 7 involving the April 13, 2019 incident. (See Doc. 28 at 3-5.) Further, whether Plaintiff is released 8 and paroled in March 2024 does not warrant a denial of the stay of these proceedings. The Court 9 has broad discretion to stay proceedings and finds such a stay appropriate at this time. Clinton v. 10 Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th 11 Cir. 1995). 12 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 13 For the reasons set forth above and for the reasons stated in this Court’s December 21, 14 2023 Order, the stay of these proceedings remains in effect pending the outcome of the criminal 15 proceedings in the Kings County Superior Court. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17

18 Dated: January 4, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27