(PC) Valenzuela v. Santiesteban

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 4, 2025
• Docket: 1:20-cv-01093
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIO A. VALENZUELA, Case No. 1:20-cv-01093-JLT-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER LIFTING STAY OF ACTION PENDING RESOLUTION OF PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. CRIMINAL CASE

14 SANTIESTEBAN, et al., (ECF No. 38)

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Mario A. Valenzuela (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds 19 against Defendants Santiesteban, Rodriguez, and Alejo for excessive force in violation of the 20 Eighth Amendment and against Defendant Perez for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth 21 Amendment, arising from the incident on June 22, 2019. 22 On April 9, 2021, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to stay this civil action until 23 Plaintiff’s criminal charges in Kings County Superior Court, case number 20CM-1621, arising 24 from the same June 22, 2019 incident involved in this action, were resolved. (ECF No. 38.) 25 Defendants were directed to file status reports every ninety days. (ECF No. 45.) 26 Defendants’ January 27, 2025 status report indicates that on January 10, 2025, Plaintiff 27 was sentenced to twenty-five years after a jury found Plaintiff guilty of battery on a non-confined 28 /// 1 person by a prisoner in violation of PC 4501.5.1 (ECF No. 72.) Defendants state that because 2 Plaintiff’s criminal trial has concluded, Defendants believe that a stay in this action is no longer 3 necessary. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file a response. 4 Pursuant to Defendants’ status report and in light of Plaintiff’s failure to file any objection 5 thereto, the Court finds it appropriate to lift the stay of this action. (ECF No. 38.) 6 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The stay of this action, (ECF No. 38), is LIFTED; and 8 2. The parties may proceed with discovery pursuant to the Amended Discovery and 9 Scheduling order to be issued by separate order. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

12 Dated: March 4, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 The Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff’s criminal case in the Kings County Superior Court, The People of the 26 State of Cal. v. Mario Alberto Valenzuela, Case No. 20CM-1621 and 20CMS-1621. The Kings County Superior Court’s Case Index Search for Case No. 20CMS-1621, provides that on November 15, 2024, a jury verdict of 27 “guilty” was reached, and on January 10, 2025, a sentencing hearing was held. The Court may take judicial notice of state court records. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007); Kasey v. Molybdenum Corp. of 28 Amer., 336 F.2d 560, 563 (9th Cir. 1964).