Howard v. Dalisay et al

Filing 69

ORDER re: stay of case and 68 joint status update letter. The parties shall file a joint status update about the status of Howard's pending criminal case no later than April 20, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 03/02/2012. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
KAYLE HOWARD,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 10-05655 LB
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER RE: STAY OF CASE AND
JOINT STATUS UPDATE LETTER

13
MICHAEL DALISAY et al.,

[Re: ECF Nos. 67, 68]

14
15

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

16

Pro se plaintiff Kayle Howard sued local police officers and county sheriffs in this lawsuit for

17

false imprisonment and false arrest in relation to a state court criminal action, all in violation of 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 2, ¶¶ 6-7.1 On April 19, 2011, upon

19

Defendants’ motion, the court stayed this lawsuit pending the outcome of those criminal charges.

20

ECF No. 58.

21

The court received and reviewed the parties’ joint letter updating the status of Howard’s criminal

22

case. Joint Letter, ECF No. 68. According to that letter, Howard’s criminal trial is now set for

23

March 28, 2012. Id. at 2. Therefore, the case shall remain stayed and the parties shall file a joint

24

status update about the status of Howard’s pending criminal case no later than April 20, 2012.2

25
26
27
28

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.
2

On January 25, 2012, Ms. Howard filed a motion asking the court to do two things: (1) to
“vacate” Defendants’ previously-filed motion to dismiss; and (2) to set a “settlement hearing” after
C 10-05655 LB

1

This disposes of ECF Nos. 67 and 68.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

Dated: March 2, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

her criminal charges are resolved. With respect to her first request, the court notes that it already
dismissed without prejudice Defendants’ motion to dismiss, see 11/21/2011 Order, ECF No. 66, so
there is nothing left to dismiss or “vacate.” With respect to her second request, because this case is
stayed, the court believes it is more appropriate to wait until the stay is lifted to set any further
hearings. For these reasons, Ms. Howard’s motion is DENIED.
C 10-05655 LB

2