(PC) Sanchez v. Deochoa ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEDRO SANCHEZ, Case No. 1:19-cv-00354-ADA-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO LIFT STAY; ORDER GRANTING CONSTRUED 13 v. MOTION TO CONTINUE STAY AND DIRECTING DEFEDANT FILE STATUS 14 ROY DEOCHOA, REPORT NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 12, 2023 15 Defendant. (Doc. Nos. 51, 56) 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s construed motion to lift the stay of this action. 19 (Doc. No. 51). Defendant filed an opposition to the motion and Plaintiff filed a reply. (Doc. 20 Nos. 54, 55). On April 10, 2023, Defendant filed a status report in this action. (Doc. No. 56). 21 Incorporated within Defendant’s Status Report is a motion to continue the stay in this matter until 22 September 2023. (Id. at 2). A review of the docket reveals this action was originally stayed on 23 January 27, 2020 due to a parallel criminal action pending before the California State court, and 24 the stays have been continued. (See Doc. Nos. 24, 31, 39, 45, 47, and 50). The Court has 25 reviewed the docket in this matter and will grant a further stay until September 28, 2023. 26 The court is vested with broad discretion to stay a case. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 27 705 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Such discretion 28 may be exercised even if the issues before the court are not controlling. Leyva v. Certified 1 Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F. 2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979). It is “common practice” when 2 pending civil and criminal actions stem from the same incident “to stay the civil action until the 3 criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 394, 4 (2007). Whether a stay is prudent requires the court to balance whether “the [criminal] 5 defendant’s fifth amendment rights are implicated” and whether the interest of the civil plaintiff, 6 the public, and the court favor a stay. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 7 902–03 (9th Cir. 1989). This interest is calculated by examining the “particular circumstances 8 and competing interests involved in the case.” Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 9 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotations omitted). 10 Here, Plaintiff proceeds on an Eighth Amendment excessive use of force claim against 11 Defendant Roy Deochoa. (Doc. Nos. 1, 6, 10). Plaintiff is facing a criminal trial in relation to the 12 same facts giving rise to the instant § 1983 Complaint. Thus, Defendant requests to stay the 13 action out of concern about parallel criminal and civil proceedings. (See generally Doc. No. 56). 14 Defendant further explains that the state court recently granted defendant’s motion to continue the 15 criminal trial. (Id.) The criminal trial is now on the September 2023 criminal docket before the 16 Tulare County Superior Court in California. (Id.). 17 The Court finds a further stay is warranted. The facts underlying both the civil and 18 criminal matters appear to stem from the same incident. Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment right 19 against self-incrimination could be jeopardized if Defendant sought to depose Plaintiff under oath 20 in the civil matter. Thus, staying the case makes “efficient use of judicial resources by ensuring 21 that common issues of fact will be resolved, and subsequent civil discovery will proceed 22 unobstructed by concerns regarding self-incrimination.” Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortg. Corp. 23 v. Triduanum Fin., Inc., 2009 WL 2136986, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2009) (internal quotations 24 omitted). Further, as a “general matter the public’s interest in the integrity of the criminal case is 25 entitled to precedence over the civil litigant.” Acacia Corp. Mgmt., LLC v. United States, No. 26 2008 WL 2018438, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 7, 2008) (internal quotations omitted). Significantly, a 27 conviction in the parallel criminal case may be dispositive of this case. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 28 U.S. 477 (1994) (prohibiting a § 1983 civil action for damages if it would render a conviction or 1 | sentence invalid). Thus, a stay of these proceedings could prevent the unnecessary expenditure of 2 || resources and does not preclude plaintiff from proceeding on his claim when the criminal 3 | proceedings are resolved. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393-94 (recommending court stay civil action 4 | until potentially conflicting criminal proceedings are complete). Thus, the stay in this matter is 5 | extended until September 28, 2023. In the event the underlying criminal matter is concluded 6 | prior to the expiration of this extended stay, Defendant shall file a motion to lift the stay. 7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 8 1. Plaintiffs motion to lift the stay (Doc. No. 51) is DENIED. 9 2. Defendant’s motion to stay incorporated in his Status Report (Doc. No. 56) is 10 | GRANTED and the Court will extend the STAY of this matter through September 28, 2023. 11 3. During the stay no motions may be filed and no discovery may take place. 12 4. Defendant must notify the Court within 21-days of the conclusion of Plaintiffs 13 | parallel criminal proceeding if Plaintiffs parallel proceedings conclude before September 28, 14 | 2023. Otherwise, Defendants must file a status report no later than September 12, 2023 to 15 || appraise the Court whether a further stay is required. 16 | Dated: _ April 12. 2023 Mile. Wh fareh Zaskth 18 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28