(PC) Eddington v. Jackson ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN EDDINGTON JR., Case No. 1:21-cv-01165-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY AND DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE 13 v. STATUS REPORT NO LATER THAN MARCH 15, 2024 14 KELVIN JACKSON, et al., (Doc. No. 29) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay this action pending resolution of a 18 parallel criminal case in Kern County Superior Court arising from the same events giving rise the 19 claims in Plaintiff’s operative complaint.1 (Doc. No. 51). Plaintiff did not file any opposition and 20 the time to do so has expired. See L.R. 230(l); see docket. 21 The court is vested with broad discretion to stay a case. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 22 705 (1997) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). Such discretion 23 may be exercised even if the issues before the court are not controlling. Leyva v. Certified 24 Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F. 2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979). It is “common practice” when 25 pending civil and criminal actions stem from the same incident “to stay the civil action until the 26 criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 394, 27 28 1 Kern County Superior Court Case No. DF015108A. 1 (2007). Whether a stay is prudent requires the court to balance whether “the [criminal] 2 defendant’s fifth amendment rights are implicated” and whether the interest of the civil plaintiff, 3 the public, and the court favor a stay. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 4 902–03 (9th Cir. 1989). This interest is calculated by examining the “particular circumstances 5 and competing interests involved in the case.” Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 6 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotations omitted). 7 Here, Plaintiff proceeds on Eighth Amendment excessive use of force claims against 8 Defendants Jackson, Smith, Rogan, Montoya, Rodriguez, Gonzalez, Johnson, and Magdaleno. 9 (Doc. Nos. 1, 18, 21). Plaintiff is facing criminal charges in relation to the same facts giving rise 10 to the instant § 1983 Complaint, in particular a series of physical altercations between Plaintiff 11 and Defendants on July 31, 2019. (See Doc. No. 29 at 8-24). Thus, Defendants request to stay 12 the action out of concern about parallel criminal and civil proceedings. (See generally Doc. No. 13 29). Defendants note that the state case was scheduled for a readiness conference on February 8, 14 2024 and for trial on February 20, 2024. (Id. at 4). 15 The Court finds a stay is warranted. The facts underlying both the civil and criminal 16 matters appear to stem from the same incidents. Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment right against self- 17 incrimination could be jeopardized if Defendant sought to depose Plaintiff under oath in the civil 18 matter. Thus, staying the case makes “efficient use of judicial resources by ensuring that 19 common issues of fact will be resolved, and subsequent civil discovery will proceed unobstructed 20 by concerns regarding self-incrimination.” Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortg. Corp. v. Triduanum 21 Fin., Inc., 2009 WL 2136986, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2009) (internal quotations omitted). 22 Further, as a “general matter the public’s interest in the integrity of the criminal case is entitled to 23 precedence over the civil litigant.” Acacia Corp. Mgmt., LLC v. United States, No. 2008 WL 24 2018438, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 7, 2008) (internal quotations omitted). Significantly, a conviction 25 in the parallel criminal case may be dispositive of this case. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 26 (1994) (prohibiting a § 1983 civil action for damages if it would render a conviction or sentence 27 invalid). Thus, a stay of these proceedings could prevent the unnecessary expenditure of 28 resources and does not preclude plaintiff from proceeding on his claim when the criminal 1 | proceedings are resolved. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393-94 (recommending court stay civil action 2 | until potentially conflicting criminal proceedings are complete). 3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 4 1. Defendants’ Motion to Stay this case (Doc. No. 29) is GRANTED until further order 5 by the Court. 6 2. During the stay no motions may be filed and no discovery may take place. 7 3. Defendants shall file a bi-monthly status report staring on March 15, 2024 to apprise 8 | the Court of the status of Plaintiff’s parallel criminal action and any appeals thereof so the Court 9 || may determine whether the stay shall continue. 10 Dated: _ February 20, 2024 Wile. Th fareh Zack 12 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28