Younger v. Del Toro

S.D. California

Younger v. Del Toro

DecidedMay 24, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-01006

StatusUnknown

This text of Younger v. Del Toro (Younger v. Del Toro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Younger v. Del Toro, (S.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 HERSCHEL YOUNGER, Case No.: 22-cv-1006-L-MSB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER: 8 v. (1) CONDITIONALLY GRANTING 9 CARLOS DEL TORO, JOINT MOTION TO STAY 10 Defendant. [ECF No. 27]

11 (2) DENYING WITHOUT 12 PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 13 [ECF No. 22] 14 Plaintiff Herschel Younger (“Plaintiff”) filed a request to upgrade his discharge 15 status with the Board of Corrections of Naval Records (“BCNR”) on September 8, 2017. 16 (ECF No. 27, at 2.) Plaintiff based his request on the contention that the PTSD and 17 PTSD-related conditions he suffered during and as a result of his service mitigate the 18 circumstances which led to his “Other Than Honorable” discharge. (Id.) The BCNR 19 denied his request on October 19, 2018. (Id.) After an unsuccessful request for 20 consideration, Plaintiff filed this action on July 11, 2022. (Id.) 21 Separate from the events leading up to this action, Plaintiff filed a request to 22 upgrade his discharge status with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). (Id.) The 23 VA granted this request for purposes of seeking VA benefits on April 5, 2023. (Id.) 24 Following this decision, Plaintiff intends to file a renewed request for consideration. (Id. 25 at 3.) The parties now jointly move to stay the proceedings in this action pending the 26 resolution of the renewed request for reconsideration. (Id. at 5.) 27 28 l “Where a court suspends proceedings in order to give preliminary deference to an 2 independent adjudicating body but further judicial proceedings are contemplated, then 3 jurisdiction should be retained by a stay of proceedings.” N. California Dist. Council of 4 || Hod Carriers, Bldg. & Const. Laborers, AFL-CIO v. Opinski, 673 F.2d 1074, 1076 (9th 5 || Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion to stay for sixty 6 || (60) days from the date this Order is filed. The parties may file a motion to extend the 7 before the stay expires, accompanied by a status report that provides justification for 8 extension. 9 Furthermore, the parties filed a joint motion to file documents under seal. (ECF 10 || No. 22.) The motion was filed in connection with impending dispositive motions. (See 11 at 6.) In light of this Order and in the absence of any pending substantive motions, the 12 || Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the parties’ joint motion to file documents 13 under seal as premature. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: May 24, 2023 1 fee fp 18 H . James Lorenz, 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 HERSCHEL YOUNGER, Case No.: 22-cv-1006-L-MSB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER: 8 v. (1) CONDITIONALLY GRANTING 9 CARLOS DEL TORO, JOINT MOTION TO STAY 10 Defendant. [ECF No. 27]

11 (2) DENYING WITHOUT 12 PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 13 [ECF No. 22] 14 Plaintiff Herschel Younger (“Plaintiff”) filed a request to upgrade his discharge 15 status with the Board of Corrections of Naval Records (“BCNR”) on September 8, 2017. 16 (ECF No. 27, at 2.) Plaintiff based his request on the contention that the PTSD and 17 PTSD-related conditions he suffered during and as a result of his service mitigate the 18 circumstances which led to his “Other Than Honorable” discharge. (Id.) The BCNR 19 denied his request on October 19, 2018. (Id.) After an unsuccessful request for 20 consideration, Plaintiff filed this action on July 11, 2022. (Id.) 21 Separate from the events leading up to this action, Plaintiff filed a request to 22 upgrade his discharge status with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). (Id.) The 23 VA granted this request for purposes of seeking VA benefits on April 5, 2023. (Id.) 24 Following this decision, Plaintiff intends to file a renewed request for consideration. (Id. 25 at 3.) The parties now jointly move to stay the proceedings in this action pending the 26 resolution of the renewed request for reconsideration. (Id. at 5.) 27 28 l “Where a court suspends proceedings in order to give preliminary deference to an 2 independent adjudicating body but further judicial proceedings are contemplated, then 3 jurisdiction should be retained by a stay of proceedings.” N. California Dist. Council of 4 || Hod Carriers, Bldg. & Const. Laborers, AFL-CIO v. Opinski, 673 F.2d 1074, 1076 (9th 5 || Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion to stay for sixty 6 || (60) days from the date this Order is filed. The parties may file a motion to extend the 7 before the stay expires, accompanied by a status report that provides justification for 8 extension. 9 Furthermore, the parties filed a joint motion to file documents under seal. (ECF 10 || No. 22.) The motion was filed in connection with impending dispositive motions. (See 11 at 6.) In light of this Order and in the absence of any pending substantive motions, the 12 || Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the parties’ joint motion to file documents 13 under seal as premature. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: May 24, 2023 1 fee fp 18 H . James Lorenz, 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Younger v. Del Toro, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/younger-v-del-toro-casd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack