Opinion
Case No. 19cv2122-MMA-WVG
04-19-2021
WILLIAM DAWES, Plaintiff, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
[Doc. No. 44]
Plaintiff William Dawes, a California inmate proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Bravo, Gene, Ugalde, Ausbury, Silva, Shellano, Ayala, Solis, and Zuniga. See Doc. No. 13. The parties jointly move to stay these proceedings for a period of four (4) months pending the outcome of related criminal proceedings in state court. See Doc. No. 44; see also S.D. Sup. Ct. No. SCS287189. The parties further request that the Court schedule a status conference, presumably to be held just prior to the expiration of the stay, for the purpose of updating the Court regarding the status of the related criminal proceedings and to determine "whether it is in the best interests of the parties to lift the stay or proceed with discovery." See Doc. No. 44 at 5. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the joint motion to stay this action.
DISCUSSION
A court's "power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Ninth Circuit has instructed:
The decision whether to stay civil proceedings in the face of a parallel criminal proceeding should be made "in light of the particular circumstances and competing interests involved in the case." Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 902. This means the decisionmaker should consider "the extent to which the defendant's fifth amendment rights are implicated." Id. In addition, the decisionmaker should generally consider the following factors: (1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation. Id. at 903.Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324-25 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting and citing Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1989)).
Upon due consideration of the Keating factors set forth above, the Court finds that a temporary stay of this action is appropriate in light of the criminal proceedings pending against Plaintiff in state court. Neither Plaintiff, Defendant, nor any interested third parties will suffer prejudice as a result of a temporary stay of the proceedings in this Court. As the parties note, proceedings related to Plaintiff's criminal charges may impact certain claims and issues in this action. Moreover, Plaintiff's current inability to access his legal materials and the logistical difficulties highlighted by the parties with respect to litigating this case render a temporary stay appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court STAYS this action for a period of four (4) months as jointly requested by the parties as of the date this Order is filed.
The Court ORDERS Defendants to submit a status report no later than five (5) court days prior to the expiration of the stay advising the Court regarding the related criminal proceedings and indicating whether circumstances warrant a further stay of these proceedings. After consideration of the report, the Court will decide whether to lift the stay.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 19, 2021
/s/_________
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge