Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01142/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01142-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN L. ERVIN, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv1142 WQH

(BGS)

ORDER

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, and

DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Stay the Action, or in the

Alternative, Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed by Defendant County of San Diego. 

(ECF No. 4).

BACKGROUND

On May 6, 2014, Plaintiff John L. Ervin, proceeding pro se, initiated this action

by filing a Complaint alleging that Defendant County of San Diego violated 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, and seeking damages and injunctive relief. (ECF No. 1).

On May 28, 2014, Defendant filed a Motion to Stay the Action, or in the

Alternative, Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 4). Defendant contends, inter

alia, that the Court should abstain pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)

due to an ongoing state-court action involving the same matter raised in the Complaint. 

Defendant requests that the Court stay this action until the state-court action is

concluded, or, alternatively, dismiss this action.

On June 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a response, agreeing that Younger abstention is

- 1 - 14cv1142 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-01142-WQH-MSB Document 9 Filed 07/21/14 PageID.<pageID> 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

appropriate and agreeing to a stay pending resolution of the related state-court action,

but opposing dismissal of this action. (ECF No. 7).

On June 23, 2014, Defendant filed a reply brief requesting that the Court dismiss

this action pursuant to Younger, or alternatively, stay the action as agreed by the parties. 

(ECF No. 8).

RULING OF THE COURT

Based upon the agreement of the parties and the Court’s review of the filings in

this action, the Court finds that Younger abstention is appropriate due to the pending

state-court action captioned, Ervin v. San Diego County, San Diego County Superior

Court case number 37-2014-00000207-CU-WM-CTL. See generally Gilbertson v.

Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 970-75 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing the elements of Younger

abstention). The Court finds that a stay, rather than dismissal, is appropriate at this

stage based upon the allegations of the Complaint. See id. at 975 (“[A]n abstentionbased stay order, rather than a dismissal, is appropriate when damages are at issue.”).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Stay the Action, or in the

Alternative, Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED as follows. (ECF No. 4). The

Court stays this action pending final resolution of the related action pending in San

Diego County Superior Court. Defendant shall file a status report regarding the statecourt action ninety (90) days from the date of this Order, and every ninety (90) days

thereafter until the state-court action has concluded. The Clerk of the Court shall

administratively close this action without prejudice to any party and with leave to be

reopened by the Court upon notification that the state-court action has concluded.

DATED: July 21, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 2 - 14cv1142 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-01142-WQH-MSB Document 9 Filed 07/21/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2