(PC) Sanchez v. Deochoa

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 12, 2024
• Docket: 1:19-cv-00354
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEDRO SANCHEZ, Case No. 1:19-cv-00354-NODJ-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING CONSTRUED MOTION TO CONTINUE STAY 13 v. (Doc. No. 61) 14 ROY DEOCHOA, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CONTINUE 15 Defendant. STAY OF CASE UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF COURT 16

17 18 On February 9, 2024, Defendant filed a status report incorporating a motion to continue 19 the stay in this matter until February 3, 2025.1 (Doc. No. 61 at 2). The Court afforded Plaintiff 20 an opportunity to file a response to Defendant’s incorporated motion and directed Defendant to 21 file a reply after Plaintiff filed his opposition. (Doc. Nos. 62-65). This action was originally 22 stayed on January 27, 2020 due to a parallel criminal action pending before Tulare County 23 Superior Court, and the Court has granted continuances of the stay. (See Doc. Nos. 24, 31, 39, 24 45, 47, 50, 57, and 59). After reviewing the parties’ respective papers and exhibits attached 25 thereto, the Court will grant a further stay of this action until January 1, 2025. 26 The court is vested with broad discretion to stay a case. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 27 705 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Such discretion

28 1 Defendant’s Reply requests that the stay be extended to January 1, 2025. (Doc. No. 65 at 4). 1 may be exercised even if the issues before the court are not controlling. Leyva v. Certified 2 Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F. 2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979). It is “common practice” when 3 pending civil and criminal actions stem from the same incident “to stay the civil action until the 4 criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 394, 5 (2007). Whether a stay is prudent requires the court to balance whether “the [criminal] 6 defendant’s fifth amendment rights are implicated” and whether the interest of the civil plaintiff, 7 the public, and the court favor a stay. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 8 902–03 (9th Cir. 1989). This interest is calculated by examining the “particular circumstances 9 and competing interests involved in the case.” Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 10 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotations omitted). 11 Here, Plaintiff proceeds on an Eighth Amendment excessive use of force claim against 12 Defendant Roy Deochoa. (Doc. Nos. 1, 6, 10). Plaintiff is facing a criminal trial in relation to the 13 same facts giving rise to the instant § 1983 Complaint. Defendant requests a further stay of this 14 action because a disposition of Plaintiff’s underlying criminal matter may moot this civil action. 15 (See generally Doc. No. 61). Plaintiff opposes the stay, asserting that Defendant’s request is a 16 “sham” and that no further extension of the stay is warranted. (See generally Doc. No. 63). 17 Plaintiff points out that Defendant’s Motion incorrectly stated that a recent continuance of the 18 criminal matter was ordered at the request of Plaintiff’s criminal defense counsel, when in fact it 19 was ordered by the superior court. (Id. at 2). In reply, Defendant acknowledges that the most 20 recent continuance of the criminal matter was ordered by the superior court but nonetheless points 21 out that “the bulk of the continuances of the criminal case . . . were requested by or on behalf of 22 Plaintiff,” including eight out of nine continuances ordered between February 2023 and February 23 2024. (Doc. No. 65 at 3-4). Further, Plaintiff refused transport to his February 21, 2024 pre-trial 24 hearing, causing a further delay in the criminal matter. (Id. at 4). If Plaintiff wanted to see his 25 criminal matter proceed to trial, Defendant contends, he should “withdraw his general time 26 waiver and take active steps to ensure that his criminal trial reaches a timely conclusion.” (Id.). 27 At present, the case is scheduled for pretrial conference on May 13, 2024. (Id.). Thus, Defendant 28 requests an extension of the stay until January 1, 2025 to allow time for the trial to take place. 1 (Id.). 2 The Court finds a further stay of this action is warranted. The facts underlying both the 3 civil and criminal matters stem from the same incident. Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment right against 4 self-incrimination could be jeopardized if Defendant sought to depose Plaintiff under oath in this 5 civil matter. Thus, staying the case makes “efficient use of judicial resources by ensuring that 6 common issues of fact will be resolved, and subsequent civil discovery will proceed unobstructed 7 by concerns regarding self-incrimination.” Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortg. Corp. v. Triduanum 8 Fin., Inc., 2009 WL 2136986, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2009) (internal quotations omitted). 9 Further, as a “general matter the public’s interest in the integrity of the criminal case is entitled to 10 precedence over the civil litigant.” Acacia Corp. Mgmt., LLC v. United States, No. 2008 WL 11 2018438, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 7, 2008) (internal quotations omitted). Significant here is that a 12 conviction in the parallel criminal case may be dispositive of this civil case. Heck v. Humphrey, 13 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (prohibiting a § 1983 civil action for damages if it would render a conviction 14 or sentence invalid). A stay of these proceedings could prevent the unnecessary expenditure of 15 resources and does not preclude plaintiff from proceeding on his claim when the criminal 16 proceedings are resolved. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393-94 (recommending court stay civil action 17 until potentially conflicting criminal proceedings are complete). Thus, the stay in this matter is 18 extended until January 1, 2025. In the event the underlying criminal matter is concluded prior to 19 the expiration of this extended stay, Defendant shall file a motion to lift the stay within 30 days of 20 the conclusion of the state criminal proceedings. 21 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 22 1. Defendant’s motion to stay incorporated in his Status Report (Doc. No. 61) is 23 GRANTED. 24 2. This action will remain STAYED until further order. 25 3. During the stay no motions may be filed and no discovery may take place. 26 4. Defendant must notify the Court within 30 days of the conclusion of Plaintiff’s 27 parallel criminal proceeding if Plaintiff’s parallel proceedings conclude before January 1, 2025. 28 Otherwise, Defendant must file a status report no later than November 15, 2024 to apprise the 1 | Court whether a further stay is required. 2 5. The Clerk of Court shall CONTINUE THE STAY THIS ACTION for all 3 | purposes until further order by this Court. 4 > | Dated: _ March 12, 2024 lew □□ fareh Zacks 6 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28