Woodson v. Sahota et al

Filing 68

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 06/21/17 recommending that this action be temporarily stayed pending re-evaluation of plaintiff's competency for trial in his pending criminal case. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAURICE WOODSON, Plaintiff, 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. 13 14 No. 2:11-cv-1589 MCE KJN P A. NANGALAMA, Defendant.1 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On May 24, 2017, the court 17 18 issued a minute order directing defendant to file a status report addressing whether plaintiff’s civil 19 case should be stayed until later this year when he is re-evaluated to determine whether he has 20 regained competency to face criminal charges. (ECF No. 66.) On June 13, 2017, defendant filed 21 a status report stating that defendant does not object to a one-time, temporary stay, but citing, 22 contra, Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1311-12 (9th Cir. 2014). In Davis, the Ninth Circuit held that a district court’s stay of a prisoner’s civil rights action 23 24 until the prisoner was “restored to competency” was an appealable final decision, and found that 25 such lengthy and indefinite stay was inappropriate because there was no indication that the 26 prisoner would ever regain the competency needed to lift the stay order. Id. 27 //// 28 1 Previously-named defendants were dismissed on July 18, 2014. (ECF No. 19.) 1 1 Here, unlike in Davis, doctors have been appointed to re-evaluate plaintiff’s competency 2 for trial in his pending criminal case, People v. Woodson, No. 13F02788 (Sacramento Co. 3 Superior Court). As noted in the May 24 minute order, the superior court expects such re- 4 evaluation to be completed later this year. In light of defendant’s lack of objection, the 5 undersigned recommends that this action be temporarily stayed pending such re-evaluation. Once 6 the re-evaluation is received by the superior court, and a determination of competency for trial is 7 made, the court will reopen and revisit the status of this case. 8 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be temporarily stayed pending re-evaluation of plaintiff’s competency for trial in his pending criminal case. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 11 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 12 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 13 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 14 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 15 objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 16 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 17 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 Dated: June 21, 2017 19 20 21 22 /cw/wood1589.temp.stay 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?