(PS) Garcia v. City of Sacramento, CA, al ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL CARLOS GARCIA, No. 2:21–cv–36–KJM-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER STAYING CASE 13 v. 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding without counsel, alleges multiple causes of action against the City 18 and County of Sacramento and individual law-enforcement officers of those entities. (ECF No. 19 1.) Plaintiff’s claims center on the conduct of officers during his 2009 arrest and detention related 20 to the death of a Riverside County man. 21 Defendant County moved to dismiss, arguing among other things that plaintiff’s claims 22 are barred by the statute of limitations. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.) Therein, the County also noted 23 plaintiff is currently being prosecuted in Riverside County Superior court for crimes stemming 24 from the arrest in question. The individual defendants joined the County’s motion. (ECF No. 25 13.) Plaintiff opposed dismissal, arguing that because his original conviction was vacated and he 26 expects the current trial to end in dismissal or acquittal, he can bring his civil rights claims against 27 defendants because the statute of limitations should be tolled for each claim under Heck v 28 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). (ECF No. 15.) ] Setting aside defendants’ other arguments in their motions to dismiss, a disposition on 2 | some of plaintiffs claims requires knowledge of the outcome of the current criminal trial against 3 || plaintiff, which is currently ongoing in Riverside County. See State v. Garcia, INF064492, Next 4 | Action: Trial Readiness Conference 6/17/2022. Case law indicates some civil rights claims are 5 || not tolled during the pendency of a criminal trial, as the outcome of those claims are wholly 6 || independent from the criminal trial. See, e.g., Mills v. City of Covina, 921 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 7 || 2019). However, other civil rights claims are inexorably tied to the proceedings in the criminal 8 | trial, and thus require knowledge of the outcome of that trial. See, e.g., Bradford v. Scherschligt, 9 | 803 F.3d 382 (9th Cir. 2015). Given the breadth of plaintiffs claims, and the fact that the 10 | criminal trial has yet to conclude (either in a conviction or dismissal/acquittal), the undersigned 11 | finds it prudent to stay this case in the interests of judicial economy. See, e.g. Wallace v. Kato, 12 | 549 US. 384, 393-94 (2007). In doing so, the court expresses no opinion on the merits of any of 13 || plaintiffs claims or the parties’ arguments related to the motions to dismiss. Rather, the court 14 | believes all parties will be best served with a ruling on the merits of each of plaintiffs claims in 15 || this case—which requires knowledge of the outcome of the criminal trial. 16 ORDER 17 It is HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. All pleading, discovery, and motion practice in this action are STAYED pending 19 resolution of plaintiffs criminal trial; and 20 2. Within 60 days of the conclusion of plaintiffs criminal trial, the parties shall submit a 21 joint statement indicating their positions on how this civil case should proceed. 22 || Dated: April 26, 2022 Aectl Aharon 24 KENDALL J. NE gare. 36 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28