Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03267/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03267-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

[Proposed] Order 1

BRIEN J. FARRELL, City Attorney (SBN 088318)

MICHAEL J. CASEY, Assistant City Attorney (SBN 095730)

City of Santa Rosa

100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 8

P. O. Box 1678

Santa Rosa, California 95402

Telephone: (707) 543-3040

Facsimile: (707) 543-3055

Attorneys for Defendant

City of Santa Rosa

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMAN D. PATEL, individually and as

trustee of the Raman D. And Jashu R. Patel

Family Trust, Raman D. And Jashu R. Patel

Residual Trust and Raman D. And Jashu R.

Patel Survivor’s Trust, and as General Partner

of the JAS 4 RAY PROPERTIES, L.P.; RITA

PATEL; DAVID STAFFORD, individually

and as guardian of BRIJESH R. DAJI; PRITA

PATEL; BRIAN BALES,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF SANTA ROSA, CITY OF SANTA

ROSA POLICE DEPARTMENT; MAYOR

JANE BENDER, sued individually and in her

official capacity; COUNCILMEMBER JANET

CONDRON, sued individually and in her

official capacity; DETECTIVE THOMAS

PEIRSOL, sued individually and in his official

capacity; DETECTIVE STEVE FRAGA, sued

individually and in his official capacity; CITY

OF SANTA ROSA POLICE OFFICER GREG

YAEGER; CITY OF SANTA ROSA POLICE

OFFICER PAUL HENRY; CITY OF SANTA

ROSA POLICE OFFICER ERIC

GOLDSCHLAG; CITY OF SANTA ROSA

POLICE OFFICER DAVID P. GORMAN;

CITY OF SANTA ROSA POLICE OFFICER

DAVID MARCONI; CITY OF SANTA ROSA

POLICE OFFICER MICHAEL S. TOSTI;

CITY OF SANTA ROSA POLICE OFFICER

DAVID LINSCOMB; CITY OF SANTA

ROSA POLICE OFFICER DAVID JONES;

CITY OF SANTA ROSA POLICE OFFICER

Case No. C 06 3267 MMC

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Date: July 14, 2006

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Place: Courtroom 7

450 Golden Gate Avenue

19 Floor th

San Francisco, CA 94102

Judge: Honorable Maxine M.

Chesney

GRANTING

MOTION TO STAY; ADMINISTRATIVELY

CLOSING ACTION

Case 3:06-cv-03267-MMC Document 21 Filed 08/14/06 Page 1 of 2
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

[Proposed] Order 2

MICHAEL CHAD HEISER; SANTA ROSA

POLICE OFFICER CHRISTOPHER

PARMAN; CITY OF SANTA ROSA POLICE

OFFICER MARCUS R. SPRAGUE; CITY OF

SANTA ROSA POLICE OFFICER DAVID

ALBRITTON; CITY OF SANTA ROSA

POLICE OFFICER MATTHEW TOMLIN;

CITY OF SANTA ROSA POLICE OFFICER

NOAH CADE; CITY OF SANTA ROSA

POLICE OFFICER KOHUT sued as DOE 1

individually and in his official capacity; CITY

OF SANTA ROSA POLICE OFFICER GARY

NEGRI, sued as DOE 2 individually and in his

official capacity; CITY OF SANTA ROSA

POLICE OFFICER BARR, sued as DOE 3

individually and in his official capacity; DOES

4 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

The doctrine of Younger abstention precludes this Court from hearing federal actions

seeking relief against state civil proceedings if the state proceeding: 1) is pending when the

federal action is filed; 2) is a judicial proceeding that implicates important state interests; and 3)

affords the federal plaintiffs an adequate opportunity to present their federal claims. See

Gilbertson v. Albright (9 Cir. 2004) 381 F.3d 965, 975, 977-978 (en banc). th

As all three factors are present in the instant action, the Court hereby GRANTS the City

of Santa Rosa’s request to stay this action until the state court civil abatement proceedings have

been completed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _____________________, 2006 __________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

that interfere with

The action is hereby administratively CLOSED, but may be reopened if

plaintiffs file a request to reopen the action within thirty days after

the exhaustion of all appellate remedies in the state court civil abatement proceedings. See

Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 608 (1975) (holding Younger abstention remains in

effect until appellate remedies are exhausted).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 14

Case 3:06-cv-03267-MMC Document 21 Filed 08/14/06 Page 2 of 2