United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS FOR INSPECTION/MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION TO AMEND
WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF NOS. 59, 82, & 86)
King (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis with this
civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
12, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to stay this case
“until Plaintiff's criminal charges in Kern County
Superior Court case number DF012989A, arising from the August
17, 2016 incident, are resolved.” (ECF No. 82, p. 1).
For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion.
Court is staying the case, the Court will deny
Plaintiff's motion for an order to produce documents for
inspection/motion to compel (ECF No. 59), without prejudice
to Plaintiff refiling the motion once the stay is lifted.
Plaintiff's pending motion to amend (ECF No. 86),
will be denied, without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling the
MOTION TO STAY
“move for an order staying this action until
Plaintiff's criminal charges in Kern County Superior
Court case number DF012989A, arising from the August 17, 2016
incident, are resolved.” (ECF No. 82, p. 1).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Villegas and Cruz attacked
him during the August 17, 2016 incident without any
provocation, struggle, or resistance on his part (ECF No. 1),
but Plaintiff is currently facing criminal charges for
battering Defendant Villegas during the incident in Kern
County Superior Court case number DF012989A.” (ECF No.
82-1, p. 2). As this case may end up being barred by Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), and as a
determination in this proceeding could invalidate the ongoing
criminal proceedings, Defendants ask that this case be stayed
until the criminal case is resolved.
opposes the motion. Plaintiff argues that “[t]his
motion is a clear effort at delatory [sic] litigation
tactics.” (ECF No. 83, p. 1). Plaintiff alleges that
this action was filed before the criminal charges, and that
the criminal charges were not filed until the Attorney
General's Office contacted the Kern County District
Attorney. Plaintiff further alleges that “[t]his stay
motion and Heck Bar mention is a malicious vindictive
retaliation for this Civil Rights Action and for not taking
the $1500  offered at settlement.” (Id. at
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. (citations omitted).
submitted no evidence supporting his assertion that the
criminal charges against him were brought at the request of
the Office of the Attorney General, or his assertion that
this motion “is a malicious vindictive