Romero v. Yates et al

Filing 18

ORDER GRANTING 10 Defendants' Motion to Stay. Defendants' motion to stay is granted and this action shall be STAYED until the criminal proceedings against Plaintiff in Madera County Superior Court have been resolved; and Plaintiff shall make attempts to serve Defendant Lancaster and provide the Court with a status update as to service at the October 10, 2014, status conference. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/29/2014. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

DAVID ROMERO,
Plaintiff,

10

Case No. 1:14-cv-1062---SKO
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO STAY

v.

11

(Doc. 10)

12
13

JAMES YATES, et al.,

14

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

15
16
17

On August 22, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to stay this case pending the outcome of

18 Plaintiff's current state court criminal proceedings. Defendants assert that resolution of the issues
19 in this case may impugn any conviction rendered in the pending criminal case against Plaintiff
20 David Romero in Madera County Superior Court in violation of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
21 (1994).
22

According to Defendants, Plaintiff is currently facing criminal assault charges for twice

23 pointing his handgun at Defendant, off-duty California Highway Patrol Officer James Yates and
24 his wife, causing Officer Yates to fire on Plaintiff. Following his arrest, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit
25 alleging claims of battery, assault, negligence, and a Section 1983 claim against Officer Yates for
26 firing upon him.
27

Plaintiff's counsel represented to the court that Plaintiff would stipulate to a stay of the

28 action until the resolution of the criminal proceedings against Plaintiff arising out of the same

1 underlying events in this case. In light of this representation, Plaintiff was ordered to file a
2 statement of non-opposition by no later than September 23, 2014. (Doc. 16.) Plaintiff failed to
3 file a statement of non-opposition. Plaintiff also filed no opposition to Defendants' motion.
4

Pursuant to Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007), "[i]f a plaintiff files a false-

5 arrest claim before he has been convicted (or files any other claim related to rulings that will likely
6 be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial), it is within the power of the district court, and
7 in accord with common practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of
8 a criminal case is ended." (citing Heck, 512 U.S. at 487-88). Because the underlying facts of this
9 case are intertwined with the criminal proceedings against Plaintiff, a judgment in favor of
10 Plaintiff on his claims presented to this Court may necessarily imply the invalidity of any
11 conviction or sentence ordered in the criminal proceedings. As such, Defendants' motion to stay is
12 supported by good cause. Furthermore, Defendants' motion is unopposed. Therefore, Defendants'
13 motion to stay these proceedings is granted.
14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

Defendant’s motion to stay is granted and this action shall be STAYED until the

16

criminal proceedings against Plaintiff in Madera County Superior Court have been

17

resolved; and

18

2.

19

Plaintiff shall make attempts to serve Defendant Lancaster and provide the Court
with a status update as to service at the October 10, 2014, status conference.

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 29, 2014

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2