Fajardo v. City of Bakersfield et al

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING 5 Motion to Stay the Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/30/2016. All pending dates and hearings are VACATED. CASE STAYED. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GILBERTO FAJARDO,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00699 JLT
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY THE
CASE
(Doc. 5)

Mr. Fajardo alleges that on May 17, 2015, he was asleep in his car when he was confronted by

17
18

officers of the Bakersfield Police Department. (Doc. 1 at 4) He claims that defendant DeGeare

19

approached his vehicle and began accusing him of stealing the vehicle and ordering him to exit. Id.

20

Fajardo claims that defendant Orozco broke the door handle and then the windshield. Id. Next, the

21

plaintiff claims that DeGeare fired her weapon into the vehicle several times. Id. Fajardo claims one

22

bullet struck him in the spine and paralyzed him from the waist down. Id. Despite these claims,

23

Fajardo was charged with multiple violations of California law and he is awaiting trial to begin on July

24

18, 2016.1 (Doc. 5-1 at 2; Doc. 5-2 at 20)

25
26
27
28

1

The request to take judicial notice of the docket of the Kern County Superior Court is GRANTED. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b);
United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1993). The record of state court proceeding is a source whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, and judicial notice may be taken of court records. Mullis v. United States Bank.
Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 n.9 (9th Cir. 1987); Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1 (N.D.Cal.1978),
aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.); see also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989); Rodic v.
Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th. Cir. 1980).

1

The defendants request the Court stay the matter to allow the criminal proceedings to conclude.

1
2

(Doc. 5-1 at 2-6) Mr. Fajardo indicates he has no objection to the Court staying the matter. (Doc. 6)

3

A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings. This power to stay is

4

“incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket

5

with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American

6

Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Gold v. Johns–Manville Sales Corp., 723 F.2d 1068, 1077 (3d

7

Cir.1983) (holding that the power to stay proceedings comes from the power of every court to manage

8

the cases on its docket and to ensure a fair and efficient adjudication of the matter at hand). This is

9

best accomplished by the “exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain

10

an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55. In determining whether to issue a stay, courts consider

11

the potential prejudice to the non-moving party; the hardship or inequity to the moving party if the

12

action is not stayed; and the judicial resources that would be saved by simplifying the case or avoiding

13

duplicative litigation if the case before the court is stayed. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268

14

(9th Cir.1962).
The Court finds the parties’ and the Court’s resources would be preserved if the matter was

15
16

stayed pending the conclusion of the criminal matter. In addition, the Court finds that the Younger2

17

doctrine may require the stay and the interests set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994),

18

likewise may be implicated if a stay is not granted. Finally, the Court is unaware of any hardship or

19

inequity that would result thereby. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

20

1.

The hearing on the motion to stay is VACATED;

21

2.

The case is STAYED;

22

3.

Every 60 days, the parties SHALL file a joint report setting forth the status of the

23

matter and detailing whether the Court should lift the stay;
4.

24

Within 20 days of the resolution of the criminal matter in the trial court, counsel

25

SHALL file a joint report setting forth the outcome criminal charges and whether there will be an

26

appeal;

27
28

2

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

2

1

4.

All pending dates and hearings are VACATED.

2
3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 30, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3