(PC) De'Armond, Jr. v. White ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MICHAEL THOMAS DE’ARMOND, JR., Case No. 1:19-cv-01695-NONE-HBK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 12 v. (Doc. No. 31) 13 J. WHITE, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S EX 14 Defendant. PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT 15 (Doc. No. 33) 16 17 18 This matter comes before the Court upon initial review of this case that was reassigned to 19 the undersigned. See Doc. No. 34. Pending review are defendant’s Motion to Stay filed 20 September 22, 2020 and Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time filed November 3, 2020. 21 Doc. Nos. 31, 33. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to stay and defendant filed a reply. 22 Doc. Nos. 32, 35. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants defendant’s motion to stay 23 this action. 1 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiff Michael Thomas De'Armond, Jr., a prisoner, initiated this action on November 26 20, 2019 by filing a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant J. 27 28 1 Because the Court grants the stay, Defendant’s motion for extension (Doc. No. 33) is moot. 1 White. Doc. No. 1. On May 11, 2020, the court directed service upon defendant. Doc. No. 11. 2 On June 5, 2020, defendant waived service of process. Doc. No. 14. On June 15, 2020, the 3 former magistrate judge stayed this action and referred it for post-screening ADR (Alternative 4 Dispute Resolution). Doc. No. 15. On July 21, 2020, defendant filed notice of opting out of 5 ADR. Doc. No. 22. On August 4, 2020, defendant filed his Answer to the Complaint. Doc. No. 6 25. The Discovery and Scheduling Order issued the next day. Doc. No. 27. Shortly thereafter, 7 defendant filed the instant motion to stay this action pending resolution of plaintiff’s parallel state 8 criminal case arising out the same incident that forms the basis of the complaint. See generally 9 Doc. No. 31. 10 The complaint alleges an Eighth Amendment excessive use of force claim against 11 defendant, Officer White, stemming from an incident that occurred on December 19, 2018 at the 12 California Correctional Institution located in Tehachapi, California. Doc. No. 1 at 3. According 13 to the complaint, after plaintiff referred to defendant and other correctional officers as the “green 14 wall,” defendant, without provocation, “kicked and punched” plaintiff “repeatedly” and sprayed 15 him with “SOS spray.” Ibid. Plaintiff acknowledges after the incident he was placed in 16 administrative segregation and charged with battery on an officer. Ibid. Plaintiff seeks only 17 monetary damages for his mental distress and physical injuries as relief in his complaint. Id. at 6. 18 On December 13, 2019, the Kern County District Attorney filed a criminal complaint 19 charging plaintiff with count of battery on defendant stemming from a December 19, 2018 20 incident. Doc. No. 31-1. On August 10, 2020, plaintiff was arraigned on the criminal complaint 21 and entered a plea of not guilty. Doc. 31-2. Plaintiff demanded a jury trial which the Superior 22 Court scheduled for November 9, 2020. Ibid. It appears that the case remains pending. 23 Defendant moves to stay the proceedings pending resolution of plaintiff’s criminal 24 prosecution for the reason the “concurrent criminal matter will impede, complicate and 25 unnecessarily delay the present civil matter.” Doc. No. 31 at 1. Plaintiff opposes the stay 26 claiming it is “highly prejudicial” and a “calculated ploy to impede due process.” Doc. No. 32 at 27 1. In reply, defendant argues that plaintiff fails to identify any evidentiary to support his 28 conclusory allegations that he will be prejudiced if the court agrees to stay this action. Doc. No. 1 35 at 1-2. Further defendant points out that plaintiff requested a stay of the disciplinary 2 proceeding pending the outcome of his criminal case. Id. at 2. 3 II. APPLICABLE LAW 4 A. Request for Judicial Notice 5 Defendant requests the Court to take judicial notice of the criminal complaint filed against 6 plaintiff in People of the State of California v. Michael Dearmond, Kern County Superior Court 7 Case No. DF014869A; and the minute order for plaintiff’s arraignment in People of the State of 8 California v. Michael Dearmond. Doc. No. 31 at 3, 10-16. The court may take judicial notice at 9 “any stage of the proceeding” under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(d). Judicial notice is reserved 10 in part for information that “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 11 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). State court proceedings are 12 routinely judicially noticed “if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” U.S. 13 ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) 14 (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff neither denies that he faces criminal charges stemming 15 from the same incident, nor the authenticity of the documents. See generally Doc. No. 32. 16 Consequently, the court takes judicial notice of the documents submitted by defendant, which are 17 part of the record from plaintiff’s underlying state court criminal matter. 18 B. Standard of Review 19 This court enjoys “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 20 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Such discretion may be 21 exercised even if the issues before the court are not controlling. Leyva v. Certified Grocers of 22 Cal., Ltd., 593 F. 2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979). It is “common practice” when pending civil 23 and criminal actions stem from the same incident “to stay the civil action until the criminal case 24 or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 394, (2007). 25 Whether a stay is prudent requires the court to balance whether “the [criminal] defendant's fifth 26 amendment rights are implicated” and whether the interest of the civil plaintiff, the public, and 27 the court favor a stay. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902–03 (9th Cir. 28 1989). This interest is calculated by examining the “particular circumstances and competing 1 interests involved in the case.” Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 2 1995) (internal quotations omitted). 3 III. ANALYSIS 4 The court finds a stay is warranted in this case. The facts underlying both the civil and 5 criminal matters appear to stem from the same incident. Plaintiff’s fifth amendment right against 6 self-incrimination could be imperiled if defendant sought to depose plaintiff under oath in this 7 civil matter. Thus, staying the case makes “efficient use of judicial resources by ensuring that 8 common issues of fact will be resolved, and subsequent civil discovery will proceed unobstructed 9 by concerns regarding self-incrimination.” Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortg. Corp. v. Triduanum 10 Fin., Inc., 2009 WL 2136986, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2009) (internal quotations omitted). 11 Further, as a “general matter the public's interest in the integrity of the criminal case is entitled to 12 precedence over the civil litigant.” Acacia Corp. Mgmt., LLC v. United States, No. 2008 WL 13 2018438, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 7, 2008) (internal quotations omitted). Significantly, a conviction 14 in the parallel criminal case may be dispositive of this case. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 15 (1994) (prohibiting a § 1983 civil action for damages if it would render a conviction or sentence 16 invalid). Thus, a stay of these proceedings could prevent the unnecessary expenditure of 17 resources and does not preclude plaintiff from proceeding on is claim when the criminal 18 proceedings are resolved. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393-94 (recommending court stay civil action 19 until potentially conflicting criminal proceedings are complete). 20 Despite plaintiff’s claim that a stay would be “highly prejudicial,” he fails to identify a 21 tangible basis to show prejudice. See generally Doc. No. 32. The court finds defendant has 22 sustained his burden in showing the stay is warranted. Bernier v. Walker, 2019 WL 1209626 *6 23 (E.D. Ca. 2019). To the extent that an overlap of plaintiff’s criminal charges and his civil action 24 exists and cannot be dissected, Wallace instructs the court should stay the civil action until the 25 related criminal proceedings are resolved. 549 at 393-94; see also Hopkins v. Contra Costa 26 County Sheriff, 2012 WL 2063112 at * 2 (N.D. Cal. 2012). Because the court does not find 27 granting the stay is fundamentally unfair to plaintiff in any way, the court grants defendant’s 28 motion for a stay (Doc. No. 31) until plaintiff’s criminal proceedings have concluded. Since the 1 | court is defendant’s motion to stay, defendant’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 33) is 2 | denied as moot. 3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 4 1. Defendant’s Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 31) is GRANTED; 5 2. Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 33) is DENIED as MOOT. 6 3. The case, including all deadlines in the Discovery and Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 7 27) are stayed pending resolution of Plaintiffs parallel criminal case pending in 8 Kern County at Case No. DF014869A. 9 4. Defendant shall file a status report within ninety (90) days from the date of service 10 of this order, and every sixty (60) days thereafter, addressing the status of the 11 plaintiff's underlying criminal proceedings and whether the court should lift the 12 stay. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 8, 2021 Mile. Wh. foareh Zaskth 16 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28