United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY RE: DKT. NO. 189
MARIA-ELENA JAMES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Bernardo Mendia ("Plaintiff") filed a Motion to
Stay Proceedings. Mot., Dkt. No. 189. Defendants John Garcia,
Ching Chang, and the United States of America (collectively,
"Defendants") oppose the Motion in part.
Opp‘n, Dkt. No. 198. The Court held a hearing on the
matter on March 23, 2017. Plaintiff did not appear at the
hearing. See Order to Show Cause, Dkt. No.
224. Having considered the parties‘ arguments, the
relevant legal authority, and the record in this 2010 case,
the Court DENIES Plaintiff‘s Motion.
action arises out of a June 2007 immigration detainer that
Garcia and Chang (together, the "Federal
Defendants"), both ICE agents, allegedly wrongfully
placed on Plaintiff while he was held in pretrial detention
in Contra Costa County. Plaintiff initiated this action in
relevant here, on February 26, 2016, the Court granted in
part and denied in part Plaintiff‘s Motion for Leave to
File a TAC. Dkt. No. 107. The Court permitted Plaintiff to
amend the SAC to assert (1) Federal Tort Claims Act
("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., claims
against the United States for intentional infliction of
emotional distress, false imprisonment, and negligence; and
(2) Bivens claims against the Federal Defendants for
violations of Plaintiff‘s First Amendment right to free
speech, Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure,
and Plaintiff‘s Fifth Amendment right to equal
protection. Id. at 10-31. The Court found the
Federal Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity at
that time. Id. at 26-31. The Court did not permit
amendment as to Plaintiff‘s proposed (1) Fifth
Amendment self-incrimination and substantive due process
claims, (2) Eighth Amendment excessive bail claim against the
Federal Defendants, (3) declaratory relief claims, and (4)
claims against ICE Field Office Director Timothy Aitken.
Id. at 31-42. On April 22, 2016, the Federal
Defendants appealed this Order. Dkt. No. 134.
10, 2016, the Court denied the Federal Defendants‘
Motion to Dismiss the TAC, finding, inter alia, the Federal
Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. No.
138. The Federal Defendants appealed this Order as well. Dkt.
light of the Federal Defendants‘ appeals, Defendants
requested the Court stay all discovery until the Ninth
Circuit resolved the qualified immunity issue. Jt. Ltr., Dkt.
No. 129; Suppl. Jt. Ltr., Dkt. No. 142. Plaintiff opposed
such a stay. Id. (both). On June 14, 2016, the Court
"partially stay[ed] discovery against [the Federal]
Defendants as to the Bivens claims but allow[ed]
discovery against them restricted to their roles as witnesses
in the FTCA claims against the United States." Dkt. No.
143 at 10. The parties engaged in discovery thereafter and
participated in a settlement conference.
Plaintiff‘s counsel withdrew from representation on
August 25, 2016 (Dkt. No. 170), the Court stayed all
proceedings to allow the San Francisco Federal Pro Bono
Project an opportunity to try to find Plaintiff counsel for
settlement purposes (Dkt. No. 171). Those efforts proved
unsuccessful, and on October 31, 2016, the Court determined
"the matter must proceed with Plaintiff representing
himself pro se for the time being." Dkt. No. 173. It
lifted the stay, scheduled a case management conference
("CMC"), and ordered the parties to meet and confer
and file a joint CMC statement no later than one week prior
to the conference. Id.
now seeks to stay this action in entirety until the appeals
are resolved. See Mot. Defendants oppose a complete
stay; rather, they argue the parties should continue to
engage in the discovery process that is necessary to prepare
for settlement discussions. Opp‘n at 2. A settlement
conference is currently scheduled for May 24, 2017. Dkt. No.
courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets
and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient
resolution of cases." Dietz v. Bouldin, 136
S.Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
This inherent authority includes the power to stay
proceedings. Ryan v. Gonzales, 568 U.S. 57, 133
S.Ct. 696, 708 (2013) ("[A] district court may stay a
case 'pending before it by virtue of its inherent power
to control the progress of the cause so as to maintain the
orderly processes of justice‘" (quoting Enelow
v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 293 U.S. 379, 382 (1935)).
determining whether to grant a stay pending an appeal, courts
consider four factors: "'(1) whether the stay
applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to
succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be
irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of
the stay will substantially injure the other parties
interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public
interest lies.‘" Latta v. Otter, 771 F.3d
496, 498 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Nken v. Holder,
556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009)). "The first two factors . . .
are the most critical." Nken, 556 U.S. at ...