Halliday et al v. Spjute et al

Filing 280

ORDER DENYING 254 and 266 Motion to Stay; ORDER GRANTING Request for Judical Notice and DENYING Request to Amend Motion to Stay as to 275 and 276 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/13/15. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

MICHAEL IOANE, et al,

7

Plaintiffs

8
9

v.

CASE NO. 1:07-CV-0620 AWI GSA
ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS AND REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE

KENT SPJUTE, et al,

10

Defendants

(Docs. 254, 266, 275, and 276)

11
12

The current Plaintiffs are Michael Ioane Sr. and Shelly Ioane who lived at 1521 Fruitland

13

Ave., Atwater, CA. They are a married couple involved in tax disputes with United States.

14

Current Defendants Kent Spjute, Jean Nole, Jeff Hodges, Brian Applegate, and Michelle Casarez

15

are Internal Revenue Service agents (“Federal Agents”). Based on the affidavit of Kent Spjute,

16

the United States was able to obtain a search warrant for Plaintiffs’ residence. The search was

17

carried out by the Federal Agents on June 8, 2006. This search forms the basis for the claims in

18

this suit.

19

Michael Ioane Sr. and Shelly Ioane filed suit on April 20, 2007 and a First Amended

20

Complaint shortly thereafter. Docs. 1 and 39. The case was stayed pending resolution of a

21

criminal case against Michael Ioane Sr. for tax fraud conspiracy, based in part on the evidence

22

seized during the search. Crim. Case. No. 09-0142 LJO. Michael Ioane Sr. was convicted on

23

October 3, 2011 after a jury trial. He appealed the conviction, but it was affirmed. In the

24

meantime, the stay was lifted in this case. Doc. 107. Plaintiffs opposed the lifting of the stay. Doc.

25

103.

26

Since that time, Plaintiffs have made two motions to stay (Docs. 129 and 148) which were

27

both denied (Docs. 138 and 158). This present motion (Michael Ioane Sr.’s motion and Shelly

28

Ioane’s joinder) is the third attempt at reversing that decision. Docs. 254 and 266. Plaintiffs also

1

ask for judicial notice of certain filings in the Michael Ioane Sr.’s criminal case relating to his

2

habeas petition. Doc. 275 and 276. Those filings will be considered: in his criminal case, Michael

3

Ioane Sr. has filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition, a motion for authorization to hire an expert

4

witness, and a request for bail pending the outcome of his habeas petition. Crim. Case No. 09-

5

0142, Docs. 271, 274, and 275. In the present motion, Plaintiffs ask that “this Court Stay the

6

instant matter until there is a ruling on the §3143 Motion for Bond in the criminal matter....There

7

is a great burden being placed on Plaintiff Ioane right now. As an inmate, the Plaintiff does not

8

have access to unhindered research; he does not have access to speak with his co-Plaintiffs freely

9

or at will; he does not have the ability to produce documents that the Defendants are requesting in

10

discovery in a timely fashion; he was prejudicially denied the right to be depositioned with the

11

other Plaintiffs present; the Plaintiff has a great burden being placed on him be the proceedings

12

continuing on their current course without the Say Order.” Doc. 254, Michael Ioane Sr. Brief, 2

13

and 5-6.

14

As Magistrate Judge Austin has already made clear in a prior order, the court has analyzed

15

the arguments in favor of and against a stay under the standard set out by Keating v. Office of

16

Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 1995) and found that a stay is not warranted. Doc.

17

138, December 17, 2012 Order, 3:4-13. The specific issue of Michael Ioane Sr.’s incarceration

18

was also considered and found insufficient: “Plaintiffs have not provided any legal authority to

19

suggest that a stay is more appropriate where a party with an interest in the proceedings is

20

incarcerated and thus at a disadvantage with regard to participation in the proceedings....This

21

factor, in the circumstances present here, weighs against the imposition of a stay of these

22

proceedings.” Doc. 138, Dec. 17, 2012 Order, 4:12-14. Plaintiffs have not shown any

23

circumstance that changes the analysis.

24

The request for judicial notice is GRANTED. The request for a stay is DENIED.

25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 13, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2