Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Madrid v. Cruz

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 9, 2019

DAVID JOSEPH MADRID, Plaintiff,
v.
A. DE LA CRUZ, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF NO. 29)

         David Madrid (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         The Court has before it Defendants' Motion for Stay. (ECF No. 29). Defendants seek a stay of the proceedings until Plaintiff's pending criminal proceeding is resolved. Defendants claim that because Plaintiff is being criminally prosecuted in Kern County Superior Court for “the same items he claims that Defendants De La Cruz and Lopez improperly confiscated from him, ” the case should be stayed. (Id. at 3).

         For the reasons below, Defendants' request will be denied without prejudice.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Procedural History

         Plaintiff filed his complaint on July 16, 2018. (ECF No.1). “Plaintiff's claims arise out of his treatment at a medical facility following an altercation at a prison, ” on November 8 and 9, 2016. (ECF No. 18 at 3). Defendants allegedly confiscated contraband from Plaintiff, found during a CAT-scan. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff alleged that Defendants refused to address or allow medical staff to address his medical needs, used excessive restraints on him, exposed and humiliated him in front of a female nurse, and prevented medical staff from addressing his pain. (Id. at 3-5). Plaintiff argues that Defendants' actions were unnecessary, given that the CAT-scan already revealed that contraband was present in his rectum. (ECF No. 1 at 5).

         This case is proceeding on Plaintiff's claims of (1) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, (2) retaliation, (3) unreasonable search, and (4) excessive force, occurring both before and after the Defendants confiscated contraband from his person. (ECF No. 18 at 1).

         On June 5, 2017, the Kern County District Attorney's Office filed a criminal complaint against Plaintiff, charging him with possession of controlled substances while in prison based on the contraband Defendants confiscated from Plaintiff on November 9, 2016. (ECF No. 30).[1] The criminal trial is set to occur on July 15, 2019.[2]

         B. Legal Standards

         “The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings.” Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995). “In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, [simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under our jurisprudence.” Id. “Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings . . . when the interests of justice seem to require such action.” Id. “A court must decide whether to stay civil proceedings in the face of parallel criminal proceedings in light of the particular circumstances and competing interests involved in the case.” Federal Savings & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (1989). In making its decision the court should consider six factors:

(1) the extent that defendant's fifth amendment rights are implicated; (2) the interest of the plaintiff in proceeding with the litigation and the potential prejudice to plaintiff of a delay (3) the burden on defendants; (4) the convenience of the court and the efficient use of judicial resources; (5) the interests of third parties; and (6) the public interest in the pending civil and criminal litigation.

Id. at 902-903.

         Younger abstention applies when a plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive, or declaratory relief in a civil case that runs parallel to related state criminal proceedings. Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2004). A court may apply a stay under Younger when: “(1) the state court proceedings are ongoing; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional claims.” Escobar v. LASD Male Doe, 2017 WL 7050642, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2017) (citing Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982)).

         C. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.