(PC) Lute v. Silva

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHRISTOPHER ROBERT LUTE, Case No. 1:20-cv-01122-NODJ-CDB (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY ACTION v. (Doc. 49) E. SILVA, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Christopher Robert Lute is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants E. Moreno, A. Randolph, E. Romero and O. Valladolid. A Discovery and Scheduling Order issued in this matter on January 2, 2024. (Doc. 47.) On January 10, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Civil Action Pending Resolution of State Criminal Proceeding Against Plaintiff. (Doc. 49.) No opposition was timely filed by Plaintiff and the Court finds one unnecessary. // // Defendants’ Motion to Stay Defendants seek a stay of this action pending resolution of criminal proceedings against Plaintiff now pending in the Kings County Superior Court. (Doc. 49.) Defendants contend this civil rights action implicates Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment rights as the ongoing criminal matter involves the same nucleus of facts (id. at 4-5) and that this Court should stay the action because Plaintiff’s excessive force claims against Defendants may be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (id. at 5). Next, Defendants contend a stay is warranted under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (id. at 6), and finally, that judicial economy supports a stay of these proceedings (id. at 7). Relatedly, Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of a complaint filed September 24, 2020 in Kings County Superior Court case number 20CMS-4954, a first amended consolidated information filed January 31, 2023 and a minute order dated December 20, 2023, in Kings County Superior Court case number 20CMS-1757. (Doc. 49-2.) Thus, this Court takes judicial notice of the documents in the state court proceedings. See Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131–32 (9th Cir. 2012) (court may take judicial notice of “documents on file in federal or state courts”). Applicable Legal Standards The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). A stay is discretionary and the “party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433–34 (2009). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066–67 (9th Cir. 2007). If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it. Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court should “balance the length of any stay against the strength of the justification given for it.” Id. “The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings.” Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995). “In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, [simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under our jurisprudence.” Id. “Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings ... ‘when the interests of justice seem[] to require such action.’” Id. (citations omitted). When a civil plaintiff brings claims under section 1983 that are “related to rulings that will likely be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial,” it is “common practice” for the court “to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393–94 (2007). When determining whether a stay is appropriate, courts look to whether the criminal defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights may be implicated by the civil proceedings. Keating, 45 F.3d at 324 (citing Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 902). See Fed. Saving & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A court must decide whether to stay civil proceedings in the face of parallel criminal proceedings in light of the particular circumstances and competing interests involved in the case. Obviously a court should consider the extent to which the defendant’s fifth amendment rights are implicated.”). Courts also consider (1) the interest of the plaintiff in proceeding with the litigation and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff of a delay; (2) the convenience of the court and the efficient use of judicial resources; (3) the interests of third parties; and (4) the interests of the public. Keating, 45 F.3d at 324-25. Absent extraordinary circumstances, federal courts may not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-54; Sprint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 77 (2013). A court may consider sua sponte whether Younger abstention should be invoked at any point in the litigation. H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000). Abstention is proper regardless of whether the applicant seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, or damages. See Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986) (“When a state criminal prosecution has begun, the Younger rule directly bars a declaratory judgment action” as have a substantially disruptive effect upon ongoing state criminal proceedings”); Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 984 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (Younger abstention applies to actions for damages as it does to declaratory and injunctive relief). A court may apply a stay under Younger when: “(1) the state court proceedings are ongoing; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional claims.” Escobar v. LASD Male Doe, No. CV-17-7352-DSF (SP), 2017 WL 7050642, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2017) (citing Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982)). Analysis In Kings County Superior Court case number 20CM-4954, Plaintiff was charged with a felony count of assault by a prisoner with a deadly weapon, here, a “DME cane,” in violation of California Penal Code section 4501(a), and one felony count of resisting an executive officer in violation of California Penal Code section 69, involving Defendant Romero. (Doc. 49-2 at 5-6.) As to the latter, the use of the DME cane was also alleged to be a serious felony within the meaning of California Penal Code sections 667(a)(1), 1192.7(c)(11) and 12022(b)(1). (Id. at 7, 9.) Further, Plaintiff was charged with felony counts of resisting an executive officer in violation of California Penal Code section 69, involving Defendants Moreno and Valladolid. (Id. at 8.) Finally, as to all involved counts, it was further alleged Plaintiff had suffered prior serious and violent felonies within the meaning of California Penal Code sections 1170.12(a) through (d). (Id. at 8-9.) That matter was consolidated with Kings County Superior Court case number 20-CMS- 1757 on January 31, 2023. (See Doc. 49 at 2 & Doc. 49-1, ¶ 2 [Bhangoo Decl.].) In Kings County Superior Court case number 20CMS-1757, the first amended consolidated information alleges Plaintiff committed felony battery of a non-confined person in violation of California Penal Code section 4501.5 and felony resisting an executive officer in violation of California Penal Code section 69, as to Defendant Romero. (Doc. 49-2 at 13.) As to those counts, various special allegations concern the use of a deadly weapon and prior serious felony convictions pursuant to California Penal Code sections 667(a)(1), 1170.12(a)-(d), setting proceedings on January 29, 2024. (Docs. 49 at 2 & 49-2 at 19.) The present civil rights action implicates Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment rights. The facts and circumstances underlying Plaintiff's criminal prosecution for felony battery by a prisoner on a non-prisoner involving a deadly weapon and felony resisting an officer by means of force or threat involving Defendant Romero, substantially overlap with the excessive force claims at issue in this case. Both cases involve the June 10, 2020 incident between Plaintiff and the Defendants and will likely involve substantially the same parties and witnesses. Thus, if this case proceeds, Defendants will seek discovery from Plaintiff, and he will be required to respond under oath. The discovery will involve Plaintiff's alleged misconduct on June 10, 2020. Thus, there exists a substantial risk of prejudice to Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment rights. Furthermore, if Plaintiff invokes his Fifth Amendment rights it may impede Defendants’ discovery. Jones v. Conte, No. C045312S1, 2005 WL 1287017, at *1 (N.D. Apr. 19, 2005) (finding that a stay of the civil case involving defendant in criminal action was appropriate “because [i]f discovery moves forward, [the] defendant will be faced with the difficult choice between asserting [his] right against self-incrimination, thereby inviting prejudice in the civil case, or waiving those rights, thereby courting liability in the civil case”) (internal quotations & citation omitted). Likewise, the other Keating factors also support a stay. Any prejudice to Plaintiff is minimal given that both proceedings involve similar facts and witnesses, and it is unlikely that evidence will be lost, or memories will fade with passage of time. McCormick v. Rexroth, No. C 09-4188 JT, 2010 WL 934242, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2010). In addition, the public interest weighs in favor of a stay because “[t]he public has an interest in ensuring that the criminal process is not subverted by ongoing civil cases.” Douglas v. United States, No. C 03-4518, 2006 WL 2038375, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2006) (quotation and citation omitted). Furthermore, if a stay is not granted, the defenses available may be limited. If the court in the state court criminal action considers Plaintiff's factual allegations regarding the June 10, 2020 incident, such findings may be binding in this Court. Until resolution of the criminal proceedings, it is unclear whether certain defenses are available, such as a Heck bar or issue action is barred by Heck is more difficult to answer where the plaintiff is facing charges of resisting arrest or similar conduct arising from the same incident he is claiming excessive force, and concluding a stay may be appropriate until such time as the underlying criminal proceedings are conducted). “If the plaintiff is ultimately convicted, and if the stayed civil action would impugn that conviction, Heck will require dismissal; otherwise, the civil action will proceed, absent some other bar to suit.” Id. (citation omitted); see Vivas v. Cty. of Riverside, No. EDCV 15-1912-VAP (DTBx), 2016 WL 9001020, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2016) (staying excessive force case where criminal prosecution for resisting arrest was pending). Judicial efficiency also favors imposition of a stay because Plaintiff's criminal action involves many of the same facts as alleged in this action. Accordingly, the Court will stay this action until Plaintiff's criminal charges have been resolved. Even if a stay is not warranted under the former analysis, a stay is warranted under Younger. Escobar, 2017 WL 7050642, at *2. Here, Plaintiff’s criminal case is ongoing and implicates the State of California’s important interest in ensuring the integrity of its criminal justice system. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (“the States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court considering equitable types of relief”). Indeed, Plaintiff may raise constitutional issues in the state proceedings. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987) (“a federal court should assume that state procedures will afford an adequate remedy, in the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary”). In addition, Plaintiff is seeking damages in this civil action. (Doc. 24 at 6.) Mann, 781 F.2d at 1449; Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 984. Accordingly, it is clear that principles of judicial comity authorize the Court to stay this action until Plaintiff's criminal proceedings have concluded. For the reasons given above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendants’ motion to stay this action (Doc. 49) is GRANTED; 2. The instant action is STAYED pending resolution of Plaintiff’s criminal case; and 3. Defendants SHALL file a status report no later than March 1, 2024, addressing the status of the criminal proceedings, and every sixty (60) days thereafter, until those proceedings are resolved. IT IS SO ORDERED. > | Dated: __ February 2, 2024 | hr UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE