Holland v. City of Ridgecrest ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DERRICK HOLLAND, Case No. 1:22-cv-01578-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER EXTENDING STAY UNTIL AUGUST 28, 2023 13 v. (Docs. 15, 17) 14 CITY OF RIDGECREST., et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 On December 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging that Plaintiff 18 was arrested unlawfully based on a fraudulent search of his home on August 17, 2020. (Doc. 1). 19 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 27, 2023. (Doc. 9). On March 20, 2023, 20 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey. 21 (Doc. 11). 22 On March 24, 2023, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request for a 120-day stay. 23 (Doc. 15). In the parties’ stipulation, Plaintiff represented that he intended to file a motion to vacate 24 the underlying state criminal conviction “within 30 days of the stipulation” and that a 120-day stay 25 of the instant action was appropriate in part because proceedings on the anticipated motion to vacate 26 “may proceed for 90-120 days.” (Doc. 13). 27 Pending before the Court is the parties’ status report in which Plaintiff requests a 60-day extension of the stay, whereas Defendants oppose any extension. (Doc. 17). Plaintiff attests he has 1 | not yet filed the anticipated motion to vacate conviction in part due to continuing discussions with 2 | counsel for Defendant Weisburch regarding execution of a supporting declaration. Plaintiff has not 3 | contacted Defendant Wise. 4 The Court has considered the factors articulated in Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254- 5 | 55 (1936) and CMAX vy. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962), and concludes that a brief 6 | extension of the current stay (30 days) is warranted based on the posture of the case and the parties’ 7 | representations in the joint report. (Doc. 17). 8 Accordingly, based on the parties’ representations, for good cause appearing and this 9 | Court’s authority to stay civil proceedings, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 10 1. This action shall be stayed until August 28, 2023, on which date the stay will expire; 11 2. Absent further stipulation, Plaintiff’s remaining time to oppose Defendants’ pending 12 motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) shall run from August 28, 2023; and 13 3. No further request for extending the stay will be granted unless Plaintiff files the 14 anticipated motion to vacate criminal judgment pursuant in People of the State of 15 California v. Derrick Andre Holland, Kern County Superior Court Criminal Case No. 16 RFOO8484A, and files any such request for extension at least one week prior to the 17 expiration of the stay (e.g., no later than August 21, 2023). 18 | IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ July 17, 2023 | br Pr 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28