(PC) Valenzuela v. Schmidt et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARIO A. VALENZUELA,
Plaintiff,
v.
T. SCHMIDT, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-01109 DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff alleges an unconstitutionally excessive use of force by prison officials at
California State Prison in Sacramento, California. This matter was referred to the undersigned
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
Defendants have filed an unopposed motion to stay the proceedings in this case. (ECF No.
26.) In the alternative, defendants request an extension of time to conduct discovery. (Id.) For the
reasons set forth below, the motion to stay is granted.
I. Procedural Background and Motion to Stay
In the complaint filed on June 27, 2022, plaintiff alleges he was assaulted on March 24,
2020, during an emergency cell extraction. (ECF No. 1.) Officer T. Schmidt, E. Thompson, and
G. Meyers used their batons to hit plaintiff on the back of his head and face while he was
Case 2:22-cv-01109-SCR Document 27 Filed 04/23/24 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

handcuffed and face down on the bed. (Id.) Sgt. Partham stood by and allowed the assault to
happen. (Id.)
Plaintiff is being prosecuted for criminal offenses related to the incident that occurred on
March 24, 2020. The court takes judicial notice of the existence of plaintiff’s criminal case,
number 21FE015762, pending in the Sacramento County Superior Court. See Rule 201, Fed. R.
Evid.; United States v. Raygoza-Garcia, 902 F.3d 994, 1001 (9th Cir. 2018) (a court may take
judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record, which may include court records).
On August 16, 2023, defendants moved to stay this case pending resolution of
plaintiff’s criminal case. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. On November 3,
2023, the court denied the first motion to stay without prejudice to renewal. (ECF No. 23.)
Defendants answered the complaint on November 21, 2023. (ECF No. 24.) On December
5, 2023, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order setting the discovery cut-off date for
April 8, 2024, and setting a deadline of June 28, 2024, for filing all other pretrial motions. (ECF
No. 25 at 5-6.)
On March 22, 2024, defendants attempted to take plaintiff’s deposition. (See ECF No. 26
at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The defendants
subsequently suspended the deposition. (Id.)
On April 12, 2024, plaintiff entered a plea of not guilty in criminal case number
21FE015762. Plaintiff’s criminal case is currently set for a preliminary hearing to take place on
June 21, 2024.
In the motion presently before the court, defendants seek to stay this case pending
resolution of plaintiff’s criminal trial. If the court denies the stay, then defendants alternately
request an extension of time to conduct discovery and to bring any discovery related motions.
II. Legal Standard
In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, simultaneous
parallel civil and criminal proceedings are unobjectionable. Keating v. Office of Thrift
Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995). “Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion
////
Case 2:22-cv-01109-SCR Document 27 Filed 04/23/24 Page 2 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

to stay civil proceedings ... when the interests of justice seem [ ] to require such action.” Id.
(alterations in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
The decision whether to stay a civil proceeding in the face of a parallel criminal
proceeding is made according to the particular circumstances of the case and considers the
competing interests involved in the case. Keating, 45 F.3d at 324-25. Relevant considerations
may include the extent to which the criminal defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights are implicated,
and five further factors (“further Keating factors”): “(1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding
expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to
plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on
defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use
of judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the
interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.” Id. (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).
III. Discussion
Given the factual overlap between the criminal case and the civil case, plaintiff’s Fifth
Amendment rights are implicated because any discovery or testimony provided in this case could
potentially be used against plaintiff in the criminal case. See ESG Capital Partners LP v. Statos,
22 F.Supp.3d 1042, 1046 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (Fifth Amendment is implicated when parallel
proceedings are “based on the same set of facts”). When defendants deposed plaintiff and asked
questions related to the incident, plaintiff invoked his right against self-incrimination to avoid
answering those questions. In addition, plaintiff has informed defendants’ counsel he will
continue to assert his Fifth Amendment right if deposed again before the conclusion of his
criminal prosecution. (See ECF No. 26 at ¶ 6.)
“A [criminal] defendant has no absolute right not to be forced to choose between
testifying in a civil matter and asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege[.]” Keating, 45 F.3d at
325-26. Thus, the implication of Fifth Amendment rights does not compel a stay of a civil case
pending the outcome of a related criminal case. ESG Cap. Partners LP, 22 F. Supp. 3d at 1046
(citing Keating, 45 F.3d at 326.) Nevertheless, the fact that plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment rights are
Case 2:22-cv-01109-SCR Document 27 Filed 04/23/24 Page 3 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

implicated weighs in favor of a stay. In addition, the potential burden on defendants and efficient
use of judicial resources both weigh in favor of a stay at this time. It appears defendants may be
hampered from obtaining meaningful discovery so long as plaintiff’s criminal case remains
pending. Staying the case also promotes judicial economy by mitigating the potential for
burdensome motion practice on discovery matters.
Plaintiff does not oppose the motion to stay, and there is no indication plaintiff would
suffer undue prejudice from a stay. No third-party interests appear to be implicated. Considering
the potential impact on plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment rights along with the further Keating factors,
the interests of justice require this action to be stayed at this time.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant’s motion to stay (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED.
2. The instant action is STAYED pending resolution of plaintiff’s criminal case.
3. Defendants SHALL file a status report within ninety (90) days from the date of
service of this order, and every ninety (90) days thereafter, addressing the status of the criminal
proceedings until those proceedings are resolved.
Dated: April 23, 2024

DLB7
vale1109.stay.g

Case 2:22-cv-01109-SCR Document 27 Filed 04/23/24 Page 4 of 4