Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00426/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00426-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 05-00426 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

(JFLC1)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOSEPH MATTHEW JONES,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ROSARIO MARINELLO, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-00426 JF

ORDER1 DENYING MOTION TO

STAY PROCEEDINGS

[re: docket no. 81]

Plaintiff Joseph Jones, proceeding pro se, moves to stay proceedings pending exhaustion

of his appeals of his conviction in state court for resisting arrest and battery. Defendants Robert

McGee and City of Pacific Grove oppose the motion. For the reasons discussed below, the

motion will be denied. 

I. BACKGROUND

On November 14, 2006, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second

amended complaint. The Court found that a portion of the proposed complaint was barred by

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Additionally, the Court concluded that the proposed

Case 5:05-cv-00426-JF Document 88 Filed 01/22/07 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

Case No. C 05-00426 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

(JFLC1)

complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support the claims not barred by Heck. The Court

denied the motion without prejudice to a future motion for leave to amend and ordered that

Plaintiff file any such motion by December 20, 2006.

On November 17, 2006, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. On December 22, 2006, the

Court issued an order stating that it would take the instant motion under submission without oral

argument pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b) and setting a briefing schedule for any motion for leave to

amend in the event that it denied the instant motion.

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks a stay “pending the final outcome of his criminal appeals and habeas

corpus.” Reply 1. The duration of such a stay is unknown and could be very lengthy. The Court

concludes that a stay is not in the interest of judicial economy and that denial of a stay will not

cause significant prejudice to either party. The Court recognizes that the criminal judgment

against Plaintiff remains under appeal and expresses no opinion as to its merit. If an appeal or

other post-conviction relief renders the judgment invalid at a later date, Plaintiff can take

appropriate legal action at that time. However, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to maintain an

ongoing case in this Court rather than dismiss the matter voluntarily, he must do so in a way that

is not overly burdensome to the Court’s docket. Plaintiff has cited no authority indicating that he

has a right to stay this case. Accordingly, having considered the relevant equities and the interest

of judicial economy, the Court will deny the motion. 

The parties shall abide by the scheduling order issued on November 17, 2006, which

provides that Plaintiff shall file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint (along with a

copy of the proposed complaint) on or before February 9, 2007. Defendants shall file any

opposition on or before February 16, 2007. Plaintiff shall file any reply by February 23, 2007. 

The Court will hear oral argument on March 2, 2006 at 9.00 a.m. The Court advises Plaintiff that

failure to abide by this schedule may lead to dismissal of his case. The Court also advises

Plaintiff that any proposed complaint must stay within the bounds described by the Court’s order

dated November 14, 2006. The Court will not accept a proposed complaint that includes claims

barred by Heck v. Humphrey. 

Case 5:05-cv-00426-JF Document 88 Filed 01/22/07 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

Case No. C 05-00426 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

(JFLC1)

III. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to stay

proceedings is DENIED. Plaintiff shall file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint

(including a copy of the proposed complaint) not later than February 9, 2007.

DATED: January 22, 2007.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00426-JF Document 88 Filed 01/22/07 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

Case No. C 05-00426 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

David W. Balch dbalch@kahlaw.net, 

Jon R. Giffen jgiffen@kahlaw.net, jmaycock@kahlaw.net; dbalch@kahlaw.net 

Notice will be delivered by other means to: 

Jeffrey I Bedell 

Kennedy Archer & Harray Attorneys at Law

24591 Silver Cloud Court

Suite 200

Monterey, CA 93940-5302

Alberta Rose Jones

1144 Tangerine Way

Sunnyvale, CA 94087

Joseph Matthew Jones

1144 Tangerine Way

Sunnyvale, CA 94087

Rosario Marinello

2266 South Main Street

Apt 165

Salinas, CA 93906

Case 5:05-cv-00426-JF Document 88 Filed 01/22/07 Page 4 of 4