(PC) Lute v. Silva et al

Filing 68

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay 65 signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 3/10/2025. (Deputy Clerk TEL)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER ROBERT LUTE,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01122-NODJ-CDB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO LIFT STAY
(Doc. 65)

E. SILVA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Christopher Robert Lute is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This stayed action concerns Plaintiff’s Eighth

19

Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants E. Moreno, A. Randolph, E. Romero and

20

O. Valladolid.

21

I.

22

On January 10, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Civil Action Pending Resolution

23
24

INTRODUCTION

of State Criminal Proceeding Against Plaintiff. (Doc. 49.)
On February 2, 2024, the Court issued its Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Stay

25

Action. (Doc. 50.) As ordered, Defendants have filed status reports every 60 days concerning the

26

status of the state court criminal proceedings. (Docs. 52, 57, 59-60, 63-64, 66.)

27
28

On February 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “’Motion to Lift Stay.’” (Doc. 65.) Defendants
opposed. (Doc. 65.)

1

II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay

2
3

Plaintiff asks the Court to lift the stay, stating he “has suffered continuing unsurmountle

4

[sic] criminal prejudice § 939 People v. Backus in Case No. CMS-1757.” Plaintiff contends the

5

Constitution does not guarantee or require a stay of civil proceeding “pending the outcome of the

6

accusitory [sic] information of this Affiants testimony Case No. CMS-1757 or CM-4954 or this

7

courts pendant jurisdiction of this affiants testimony of US.C. Title 18 PC § 242 torts of assault

8

and battery as sworn herein ….” Plaintiff alleges unreasonable delay “to move to trial for

9

damages … alleging 4-year delay of actual innocence of P.C. § 69 ….” Plaintiff states he has not

10

voluntarily waived “any time in Indio Sup. Ct. #1801515 or signed § 977 to appear ....” He also

11

asserts he has not “waived time, trial ready CMS-1757, CM-4954 two years ago.” Plaintiff

12

contends lifting the stay “is proper to adjudicate Judicial integrity of chronology of” his alleged

13

injuries. Plaintiff asks the Court to lift the stay of these proceedings, “extend protective order with

14

aforementioned Riv. Co. jail staff,” and appoint counsel to represent him at settlement

15

proceedings.
Defendants’ Opposition

16

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion, contending Plaintiff has not demonstrated changed

17
18

circumstances, let alone extraordinary circumstances, that would warrant a departure from the

19

Younger1 abstention doctrine. Defendants state Kings County Superior Court case number

20

20CMS-1757—alleging Plaintiff committed felony battery of a non-confined person in violation

21

of California Penal Code section 4501.5 and felony resisting an executive officer in violation of

22

California Penal Code section 69, as to Defendant Romero, including special allegations

23

concerning the use of a deadly weapon and prior serious felony convictions pursuant to California

24

Penal Code sections 667(a)(1), 1170.12(a)-(d), 1192.7(c) and 12022(b)(1)—is set for a trial

25

setting conference on April 14, 2025. They contend this action should remain stayed and that

26

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate changed circumstances warranting a lifting of the stay.

27
28

1

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

2

1

Defendants argue they will be prejudiced were the stay lifted because if Plaintiff invokes his Fifth

2

Amendment rights it may impede Defendants’ discovery, and until criminal proceedings are

3

resolved, it is unclear whether certain defenses, such as a Heck2 bar or issue preclusion, are

4

available. While this action has been stayed for just over a year, Defendants assert that “is not

5

especially long, as it is not unusual for a federal case to be stayed for a year or longer pending

6

resolution of a related criminal proceeding” and the stay is not indefinite. Additionally,

7

Defendants maintain Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting a

8

departure from the Younger abstention doctrine.

9

Analysis

10

The Court finds no basis to lift the stay of these proceedings. The underlying criminal case

11

remains pending in the Kings County Superior Court. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94

12

(2007) (when a civil plaintiff brings claims under section 1983 that are “related to rulings that

13

will likely be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial,” it is “common practice” for the

14

court “to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is

15

ended”); Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995) (“a court may

16

decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings ... ‘when the interests of justice seem[] to require

17

such action’”); see also Fed. Saving & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir.

18

1989). And absent extraordinary circumstances, federal courts may not interfere with ongoing

19

state criminal proceedings. Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-54; see Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449

20

(9th Cir. 1986) (“When a state criminal prosecution has begun, the Younger rule directly bars a

21

declaratory judgment action” as well as a section 1983 action for declaratory relief and damages

22

“where such an action would have a substantially disruptive effect upon ongoing state criminal

23

proceedings”).

24

To the extent Plaintiff references “extend[ing a] protective order,” this Court has not

25

issued a protective order; hence, there is nothing to extend. To the extent Plaintiff seeks the

26

appointment of counsel to represent him at a settlement conference, a settlement conference has

27
28

2

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

3

1

not been set in this matter and Defendants previously elected not to participate in a voluntary

2

early settlement conference.

3

In sum, Plaintiff has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances. Nor has the stay of

4

these proceedings been particularly lengthy to date,3 amounting to a changed circumstance. In any

5

event, it appears the state criminal matter will soon be set for trial. The Court declines to lift the

6

stay of these proceedings for all the reasons previously found. (See Doc. 50.)

7

III.

8

For the reasons given above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

9

1. Plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay of these proceedings (Doc. 65) is DENIED;

10

2. The action remains STAYED pending resolution of Plaintiff’s criminal case; and

11

3. Defendants SHALL continue to file a status report every sixty (60) days, from the

12
13

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

date of their prior status report, until the criminal proceedings are resolved.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

March 10, 2025

___________________

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiff asserts a “4-year delay,” however, while Plaintiff filed this action on August 12, 2020, the Court was
required to screen his original complaint and amended complaints (see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)) before directing
service of process upon Defendants. Defendants appeared in this action on November 18, 2023, and the stay of these
proceedings began February 2, 2024. Any delay prior to that date was not unreasonable.
3

27
28

4