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