1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZACHARY MINOR, et al., No. 2:25-cv-02592-TLN-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JESSIE FLORES, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 On October 29, 2025, Defendants Jessie Flores and Amanda Martinez filed a motion to 18 dismiss Plaintiff Angela and Zachary Minor’s Complaint with a hearing noticed for December 3, 19 2025. (ECF No. 6.) Because Plaintiffs proceed without counsel, this matter is referred to the 20 undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On November 25, 2025, the 21 Court vacated the December 3, 2025, hearing and submitted the motion on the record and briefs 22 on file pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). 23 On April 8, 2026, the Court issued a minute order to show cause as to why the case should 24 not be stayed pending the ongoing criminal action. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiffs responded on April 25 16, 2026, and Defendants responded on April 22, 2026, to the Court’s order. (ECF Nos. 14, 15.) 26 For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends the Second Amended Complaint be recognized 27 as the operative Complaint, that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be DENIED without prejudice, 28 and that this action be STAYED pending the ongoing criminal action in People v. Minor, Sonoma 1 County Superior Court Case No. SCR-765374-1. 2 I. Background 3 Plaintiffs initiated this action on September 10, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs amended the 4 Complaint twice, filing a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on October 15, 2025.1 (ECF No. 5 5.) The SAC arises out of harm Plaintiffs allegedly suffered in connection with criminal offenses 6 charged against Plaintiff Zachary Minor in state court. Id. Plaintiffs bring several causes of action 7 against Defendants Jessie Flores and Amanda Martinez. Id. These include a violation of civil 8 rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a failure to preserve exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. 9 Maryland, a violation of Procedural Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment against 10 Defendant Amanda Martinez, allegations of false statements made by Defendant Martinez, 11 conspiracy to violate civil rights, and unlawful search and seizure based on an allegedly 12 fabricated affidavit. SAC at ¶¶ 72-121. 13 II. Procedural Posture 14 Plaintiffs initiated this action against Defendants Jessie Flores and Amanda Martinez on 15 September 10, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on 16 October 6, 2025, and later a SAC. (ECF No. 4.) On October 29, 2025, Defendants Jessie Flores 17 and Amanda Martinez filed a motion to dismiss the SAC with a hearing noticed for December 3, 18 2025. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiffs filed an opposition on November 18, 2025. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiffs 19 later filed a notice of subsequent development as well as a notice of errata on November 20, 2025. 20 (ECF No. 9, 10.) Defendants replied on November 25, 2025. (ECF No. 11.) Also on November 21 25, 2025, the undersigned issued a minute order vacating the December 3, 2025, hearing 22 pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (ECF No. 12.) 23 On April 8, 2026, the undersigned issued a minute order to show cause as to why the case 24 should not be stayed pending the ongoing criminal action in People v. Minor, Case No. SCR- 25 765374-1, per Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiffs responded to the 26
27 1 Plaintiffs erred in not requesting the Court’s leave for each of their amended pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. However, the Court recognizes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 the 28 SAC to be the operative complaint. 1 minute order on April 16, 2026. (ECF No. 14.) Defendants responded to the minute order on 2 April 22, 2026. (ECF No. 15.) 3 III. Discussion 4 Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the SAC, arguing that Plaintiffs lack standing 5 because they do not have a redressable injury, that Plaintiffs’ claims fail under Federal Rule of 6 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Heck Doctrine, and that the 7 Court should at least stay the case under Younger v. Harris. (ECF No. 6.) As the Court will be 8 staying the action under Younger, it need not address Defendants’ other arguments and will 9 dismiss Defendants’ motion without prejudice. 10 Principles of comity and federalism weigh against a federal court interfering with ongoing 11 state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief except under extraordinary 12 circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54. Younger abstention is required when (1) 13 state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) state proceedings involve important state 14 interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional 15 issue. Middlesex County Ethic Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n., 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). 16 Here, there is a criminal action pending in Sonoma County Superior Court and Plaintiffs’ 17 allegations appear to arise from conduct connected to these proceedings. See Beltran v. 18 California, 871 F.2d 777, 781 (9th Cir. 1988). The second prong of Younger is met because an 19 important state interest is implicated by criminal proceedings. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 20 49 (1986). The third prong of Younger is also satisfied because state criminal proceedings 21 generally provide an opportunity for constitutional questions to be presented by their nature. 22 Federal courts assume state procedures will afford an adequate opportunity for consideration of 23 constitutional claims “in the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary.” Pennzoil Co. v. 24 Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987); see also Duke v. Gastelo, 64 F. 4th 1088, 1096 (9th Cir. 25 2023) (“Properly framed, the third requirement for Younger abstention asks whether there 26 remains an opportunity to litigate the federal claim in a state-court proceeding at the time the 27 federal court is considering whether to abstain.”) 28 Plaintiffs’ response to the Order to Show Cause does not indicate extraordinary 1 || circumstances warranting federal intervention. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm’n, 457 USS. 2 | at 435; Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 900-901 (9th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the Court must 3 || abstain from this matter. 4 IV. Conclusion 5 For the reasons set forth above IT IS RECOMMENDED that 6 1. Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) be recognized as the operative 7 Complaint; 8 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) is DENIED without prejudice; 9 3. This matter be STAYED pending the resolution of People v. Minor, Sonoma County 10 Superior Court Case No. SCR-765374-1; 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 12 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZACHARY MINOR, et al., No. 2:25-cv-02592-TLN-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JESSIE FLORES, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 On October 29, 2025, Defendants Jessie Flores and Amanda Martinez filed a motion to 18 dismiss Plaintiff Angela and Zachary Minor’s Complaint with a hearing noticed for December 3, 19 2025. (ECF No. 6.) Because Plaintiffs proceed without counsel, this matter is referred to the 20 undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On November 25, 2025, the 21 Court vacated the December 3, 2025, hearing and submitted the motion on the record and briefs 22 on file pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). 23 On April 8, 2026, the Court issued a minute order to show cause as to why the case should 24 not be stayed pending the ongoing criminal action. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiffs responded on April 25 16, 2026, and Defendants responded on April 22, 2026, to the Court’s order. (ECF Nos. 14, 15.) 26 For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends the Second Amended Complaint be recognized 27 as the operative Complaint, that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be DENIED without prejudice, 28 and that this action be STAYED pending the ongoing criminal action in People v. Minor, Sonoma 1 County Superior Court Case No. SCR-765374-1. 2 I. Background 3 Plaintiffs initiated this action on September 10, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs amended the 4 Complaint twice, filing a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on October 15, 2025.1 (ECF No. 5 5.) The SAC arises out of harm Plaintiffs allegedly suffered in connection with criminal offenses 6 charged against Plaintiff Zachary Minor in state court. Id. Plaintiffs bring several causes of action 7 against Defendants Jessie Flores and Amanda Martinez. Id. These include a violation of civil 8 rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a failure to preserve exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. 9 Maryland, a violation of Procedural Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment against 10 Defendant Amanda Martinez, allegations of false statements made by Defendant Martinez, 11 conspiracy to violate civil rights, and unlawful search and seizure based on an allegedly 12 fabricated affidavit. SAC at ¶¶ 72-121. 13 II. Procedural Posture 14 Plaintiffs initiated this action against Defendants Jessie Flores and Amanda Martinez on 15 September 10, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on 16 October 6, 2025, and later a SAC. (ECF No. 4.) On October 29, 2025, Defendants Jessie Flores 17 and Amanda Martinez filed a motion to dismiss the SAC with a hearing noticed for December 3, 18 2025. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiffs filed an opposition on November 18, 2025. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiffs 19 later filed a notice of subsequent development as well as a notice of errata on November 20, 2025. 20 (ECF No. 9, 10.) Defendants replied on November 25, 2025. (ECF No. 11.) Also on November 21 25, 2025, the undersigned issued a minute order vacating the December 3, 2025, hearing 22 pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (ECF No. 12.) 23 On April 8, 2026, the undersigned issued a minute order to show cause as to why the case 24 should not be stayed pending the ongoing criminal action in People v. Minor, Case No. SCR- 25 765374-1, per Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiffs responded to the 26
27 1 Plaintiffs erred in not requesting the Court’s leave for each of their amended pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. However, the Court recognizes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 the 28 SAC to be the operative complaint. 1 minute order on April 16, 2026. (ECF No. 14.) Defendants responded to the minute order on 2 April 22, 2026. (ECF No. 15.) 3 III. Discussion 4 Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the SAC, arguing that Plaintiffs lack standing 5 because they do not have a redressable injury, that Plaintiffs’ claims fail under Federal Rule of 6 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Heck Doctrine, and that the 7 Court should at least stay the case under Younger v. Harris. (ECF No. 6.) As the Court will be 8 staying the action under Younger, it need not address Defendants’ other arguments and will 9 dismiss Defendants’ motion without prejudice. 10 Principles of comity and federalism weigh against a federal court interfering with ongoing 11 state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief except under extraordinary 12 circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54. Younger abstention is required when (1) 13 state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) state proceedings involve important state 14 interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional 15 issue. Middlesex County Ethic Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n., 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). 16 Here, there is a criminal action pending in Sonoma County Superior Court and Plaintiffs’ 17 allegations appear to arise from conduct connected to these proceedings. See Beltran v. 18 California, 871 F.2d 777, 781 (9th Cir. 1988). The second prong of Younger is met because an 19 important state interest is implicated by criminal proceedings. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 20 49 (1986). The third prong of Younger is also satisfied because state criminal proceedings 21 generally provide an opportunity for constitutional questions to be presented by their nature. 22 Federal courts assume state procedures will afford an adequate opportunity for consideration of 23 constitutional claims “in the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary.” Pennzoil Co. v. 24 Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987); see also Duke v. Gastelo, 64 F. 4th 1088, 1096 (9th Cir. 25 2023) (“Properly framed, the third requirement for Younger abstention asks whether there 26 remains an opportunity to litigate the federal claim in a state-court proceeding at the time the 27 federal court is considering whether to abstain.”) 28 Plaintiffs’ response to the Order to Show Cause does not indicate extraordinary 1 || circumstances warranting federal intervention. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm’n, 457 USS. 2 | at 435; Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 900-901 (9th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the Court must 3 || abstain from this matter. 4 IV. Conclusion 5 For the reasons set forth above IT IS RECOMMENDED that 6 1. Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) be recognized as the operative 7 Complaint; 8 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) is DENIED without prejudice; 9 3. This matter be STAYED pending the resolution of People v. Minor, Sonoma County 10 Superior Court Case No. SCR-765374-1; 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 12 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days after 13 || being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 14 || the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should be captioned “Objections to 15 || Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served 16 | parties and filed with the Court within 14 days after service of the objections. Failure to file 17 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 18 || Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 19 | (9th Cir. 1991). 20 || Dated: May 4, 2026 / hice ANKE) flo CAROLYNK.DELANEY 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28