(PC) Escamilla v. Oboyle ( 2024 )

1 Robert Chalfant, (State Bar No. 203051) ROBERT CHALFANT LAW, PC 2 13620 Lincoln Way, Suite 325 3 Auburn, California 95603 Telephone: (916) 647-7728 4 Facsimile: (916) 930-6093 Email: robert@rchalfant.com 5 6 Attorney for Plaintiff BRANDON M. ESCAMILLA 7 Janine K. Jeffery, Esq. CBN 112639 8 Jjeffery@reilyjeffery.com 9 REILY & JEFFERY. INC. 5850 Canoga Avenue, Suite 400 10 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 350-6282 11 Facsimile: (818) 350-6283 12 Attorneys for Defendants A Oboyle and T. Phillips 13 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 18 BRANDON M. ESCAMILLA, ) Case No.: 2:22-cv-2038 KJM AC P ) 19 Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ) ORDER REQUESTING STAY OF ALL 20 vs. ) PROCEEDINGS 21 ) A. OBOYLE, et al., ) 22 ) Defendants. ) 23 ) 24 ) 25 COMES NOW THE PARTIES, by and through their respective attorneys and subject to 26 the approval of this Court, hereby stipulate and respectfully request a stay of all proceedings in 27 this matter. The parties hereby stipulate, through their counsel of record, as follows: 28 1 WHEREAS, on November 4, 2022, Plaintiff Brandon Escamilla (“Plaintiff”) 2 initiated this action by filing a Pro Se 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint (ECF No. 3 1); 4 WHEREAS, the Complaint alleges that on August 24, 2022, Plaintiff was 5 subjected to excessive force by named Correctional Officers Defendants A. Oboyle and 6 T. Phillips while incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison. (Id. at pp. 1:15); 7 WHEREAS, on November 16, 2022, Magistrate Judge Allison Claire conducted 8 an initial screening of Plaintiff’s Pro Se Civil Rights Complaint and authorized service 9 of the complaint on Defendants Oboyle and Phillips (ECF No. 6 at p.3:11-21) 10 WHEREAS, Plaintiff subsequently obtained permission from this Court to file 11 his Third Amended Complaint, which he filed on August 28, 2023 (ECF Nos. 50 and 12 51); 13 WHEREAS, Defendants answered Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint on 14 January 31, 2024 (ECF No. 56); 15 WHEREAS, on February 6, 2024, Magistrate Judge Allison Claire issued a 16 Discovery and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 58); WHEREAS, on March 20, 2024, attorney Robert Chalfant filed a Notice of 17 Appearance, and now represents Mr. Escamilla in this matter (ECF No. 59); 18 WHEREAS, on April 1, 2024, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order 19 to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order issued in this case and extend all 20 discovery deadlines based on Mr. Chalfant’s appearance in the action; (ECF No. 60); 21 WHEREAS, On April 1, 2024, Magistrate Judge Allison Claire signed the 22 Proposed Order and Ordered that: (1) discovery close on September 30, 2024; (2) any 23 motions to compel be filed by October 31, 2024; and (3) all pretrial motions be filed on 24 or before December 2, 2024. (ECF No. 61); 25 WHEREAS, on May 6, 2024, Counsel for Plaintiff was notified by defense 26 counsel and his client that a criminal Complaint had been filed in Amador County 27 Superior Court against Plaintiff, and the criminal Complaint alleged, among other things, 28 1 that Plaintiff committed felony battery against Defendants Oboyle and Phillips on 2 August 24, 2022; 3 WHEREAS, on May 22, 2024, Plaintiff’s Counsel obtained a copy of the 4 Criminal Complaint filed in Amador County Superior Court on April 2, 2024 (See 5 Attached Exhibit A), which shows that Plaintiff is being prosecuted for the same acts 6 that he is proceeding upon in this federal civil rights action (Id. at Counts Two and 7 Three); 8 WHEREAS, the parties seek to stay this action pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 9 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) and the implication of 10 Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment rights; 11 WHEREAS, judicial efficiency favors the imposition of a stay of all proceedings 12 in this matter because Plaintiff’s criminal action involves the same facts alleged in 13 Plaintiff’s civil action; 14 WHEREAS, the public interest weighs in favor of a stay because “[t]he public 15 has an interest in ‘ensuring that the criminal process is not subverted’ by ongoing civil 16 cases.” Valenzuela v. Santiesteban, 2021 U.S. Dist LEXIS 69535, 2021 WL 1845544, at *1-3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2021)(staying excessive force case where related criminal 17 prosecution pending); 18 WHEREAS, the parties recognize that proceeding with these actions at this time 19 could have potential adverse effects on the parties’ ability to prove and disprove claims 20 in this matter. For these reasons, the parties jointly request that this matter be stayed to 21 the conclusion of the related criminal matter in the Amador County Superior Court 22 proceedings; 23 SO STIPULATED. 24 25 Dated: May 29, 2024 ROBERT CHALFANT LAW, PC 26 27 By: /s/ Robert Chalfant__________________ ROBERT CHALFANT 28 Attorney for Plaintiff 1 Dated: May 28, 2024 REILY & JEFFERY, INC. 3 By:/S/ Janine Jeffery (Auth. 5/28/24) 4 Janine K. Jeffery Attorneys for Defendants 5 A. OBOYLE and T. PHILLIPS 7 {PROPOSED} ORDER 8 Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, this case shall remain stayed in all respects until the conclusion of the related criminal matter. All pending deadlines and dates are vacated. Plaintiff 11 || agrees to notify Defendants and the Court at the termination of the related criminal matter, at 12 || which time the Court can issue a new scheduling order. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 || DATED: May 29, 2024 ~ 16 MnCl ALLISON CLAIRE 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ee STIPTIT ATION AND ORDER TO STAY ACTION