Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00818/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00818-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil 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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVONTE B. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ARDEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00818-ADA-CDB (PC) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STAY CASE AND TO 

MODIFY DISCOVERY AND 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

(Doc. 32)

Plaintiff Devonte B. Harris is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. 

This matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants 

Arden, Gamboa, Garcia, Pasillas and Perez, and First Amendment retaliation claims against 

Defendants Arden, Gamboa, Garcia and Pasillas. 

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 21, 2023, the Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order in this matter. 

(Doc. 28.) On January 8, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to stay these proceedings. (Doc. 32.) 

The motion is supported by the Declaration of Andrea R. Sloan (id. at 8-9) and two exhibits filed 

in a Kings County Superior Court criminal proceeding (id. at 10-17 [Exhibit A: Complaint filed 

8/11/2020 & Exhibit B: Information filed 7/14/2022]). The Court finds a response by Plaintiff to 

be unnecessary. 

//

Case 1:21-cv-00818-KES-CDB Document 33 Filed 01/10/24 Page 1 of 6
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

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants seek a stay of this action pending resolution of criminal proceedings against 

Plaintiff now pending in the Kings County Superior Court, case number 20cm-4017. (Doc. 32 at 

1, 3.) 

In this civil action, Plaintiff has alleged excessive force claims against Defendants Arden, 

Gamboa, Garcia, Pasillas and Perez, stemming from an incident that occurred on June 14, 2019. 

(See Docs. 14 & 15.) As a result of the same incident, Plaintiff is facing felony criminal charges 

of battery on a peace officer (Defendant Arden) and three counts of resisting an officer by means 

of force or threat (Defendants Arden, Garcia and Gamboa). (Doc. 32 at 4-5, 8, 15-16.) Defendants 

advise Plaintiff’s motion for mental health diversion and mental health evaluation will be heard 

on January 24, 2024, in the state court action. (Id. at 5.) Defendants contend an extended stay of 

this action is appropriate pending resolution of the state court criminal matter. (Id.) Additionally, 

Defendants assert they are unable to properly assess their defenses, including the potential 

applicability of a Heck1bar, until the criminal proceeding is resolved. (Id.) Defendants 

additionally seek a stay of the previously issued Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Id.) 

The Motion To Stay the Case

Applicable Legal Standards

The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 

control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North 

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). A stay is discretionary and the “party requesting a stay 

bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken v. 

Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433–34 (2009). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” 

Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066–67 (9th Cir. 2007). 

If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it. 

Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court should “balance the length of any 

stay against the strength of the justification given for it.” Id.

1 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

Case 1:21-cv-00818-KES-CDB Document 33 Filed 01/10/24 Page 2 of 6
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

“The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the 

outcome of criminal proceedings.” Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th 

Cir. 1995). “In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, 

[simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under our 

jurisprudence.” Id. “Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings ... 

‘when the interests of justice seem[] to require such action.’” Id. (citations omitted). 

Analysis

When a civil plaintiff brings claims under section 1983 that are “related to rulings that 

will likely be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial,” it is “common practice” for the 

court “to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is 

ended.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393–94 (2007); see Fed. Saving & Loan Ins. Corp. v. 

Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A court must decide whether to stay civil 

proceedings in the face of parallel criminal proceedings in light of the particular circumstances 

and competing interests involved in the case.”).

When determining whether a stay is appropriate, courts look to whether the criminal 

defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights may be implicated by the civil proceedings. Keating, 45 

F.3d at 324 (citing Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 902). Courts also consider (1) the interest of the 

plaintiff in proceeding with the litigation and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff of a delay; 

(2) the convenience of the court and the efficient use of judicial resources; (3) the interests of 

third parties; and (4) the interests of the public. Keating, 45 F.3d at 324-25. 

Here, the civil rights action implicates Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment rights. The facts and 

circumstances underlying Plaintiff's criminal prosecution for felony battery by a prisoner on a 

non-prisoner involving Defendant Arden, and three felony counts of resisting an officer by 

means of force or threat as to Defendants Arden, Garcia and Gamboa, substantially overlap with 

the excessive force claims at issue in this case. Both cases involve the June 14, 2019 incident 

between Plaintiff and the Defendants and will likely involve substantially the same parties and 

witnesses. Thus, if this case proceeds, Defendants will seek discovery from Plaintiff, and he will 

be required to respond under oath. The discovery will involve Plaintiff's alleged misconduct on 

Case 1:21-cv-00818-KES-CDB Document 33 Filed 01/10/24 Page 3 of 6
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

June 14, 2019. Thus, there exists a substantial risk of prejudice to Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment 

rights. Furthermore, if Plaintiff invokes his Fifth Amendment rights it may impede Defendants’ 

discovery. Jones v. Conte, No. C045312S1, 2005 WL 1287017, at *1 (N.D. Apr. 19, 2005) 

(finding that a stay of the civil case involving defendant in criminal action was appropriate 

“because [i]f discovery moves forward, [the] defendant will be faced with the difficult choice 

between asserting [his] right against self-incrimination, thereby inviting prejudice in the civil 

case, or waiving those rights, thereby courting liability in the civil case”) (internal quotations & 

citation omitted).

Likewise, the other Keating factors also support a stay. Any prejudice to Plaintiff is 

minimal given that both proceedings involve the similar facts and witnesses, and it is unlikely 

that evidence will be lost, or memories will fade with passage of time. McCormick v. Rexroth, 

No. C 09-4188 JT, 2010 WL 934242, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2010). In addition, the public 

interest weighs in favor of a stay because “[t]he public has an interest in ‘ensuring that the 

criminal process is not subverted’ by ongoing civil cases.” Douglas v. United States, No. C 03-

4518, 2006 WL 2038375, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2006).

Furthermore, if a stay is not granted, the defenses available may be limited. If the court in 

the state court criminal action considers Plaintiff's factual allegations regarding the June 14, 2019 

incident, such findings may be binding in this Court. Until resolution of the criminal 

proceedings, it is unclear whether certain defenses are available, such as a Heck bar or issue 

preclusion. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393–94 (noting that the question of whether a section 1983 

action is barred by Heck is more difficult to answer where the plaintiff is facing charges of 

resisting arrest or similar conduct arising from the same incident, and staying the action until the 

underlying criminal proceedings are concluded may be appropriate) (citation omitted); see also

Vivas v. Cty. of Riverside, No. EDCV 15-1912-VAP (DTBx), 2016 WL 9001020, at *3 (C.D. 

Cal. Jan. 12, 2016) (staying excessive force case where criminal prosecution for resisting arrest 

was pending). 

Judicial efficiency also favors imposition of a stay because Plaintiff's criminal action 

involves many of the same facts. Accordingly, the Court will stay this action until Plaintiff's 

Case 1:21-cv-00818-KES-CDB Document 33 Filed 01/10/24 Page 4 of 6
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

5

criminal charges have been resolved.

The Motion to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order & Request for 

Leave Nunc Pro Tunc to File Exhaustion Motion Once Stay is Lifted

Defendants request they be granted leave to file an exhaustion motion – a deadline 

originally set for December 21, 2023 – nunc pro tunc once a stay of these proceedings is lifted. 

(Doc. 32 at 5-6.) Present defense counsel2 Sloan was assigned to this matter on the same date as 

the deadline for the filing of an exhaustion motion. (Id. at 8, ¶ 2; see also Doc. 31 [Notice of 

Change in Designation of Counsel filed 12/21/23].) Counsel declares that she began assessing the 

case shortly thereafter and concluded Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his claims against Defendant 

Pasillas, as well as his claim that Defendants retaliated against him by submitting a false rules 

violation report arising from the June 14, 2019 incident. (Id. at 8, ¶¶ 6-7.) Defendants contend 

granting their request will “streamline the case and elimination issues for trial, saving the Court 

and all parties time and expense.” (Id. at 6.) Defendants assert Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by 

their request as it is made just weeks after the December 21, 2023 deadline. (Id.) 

Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and 

with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily 

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot 

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was 

not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

Here, the deadline for the filing of an exhaustion motion expired the same day Deputy 

Attorney General Sloan was assigned to this case. Further, defense counsel’s assessment of the 

record in this action and conclusion purporting to find Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies as to some of the claims asserted was timely performed. Thus, defense 

counsel acted diligently, and the relevant deadline cannot otherwise be met despite that diligence. 

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; see, e.g., Huckabee v. Medical Staff at CSATF, No. 1:09-cv-00749-

DAD-BAM (PC), 2017 WL 6855473, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2017) (granting defendants’ 

2 Deputy Attorney General Michael J. Yun was previously assigned in this matter.

Case 1:21-cv-00818-KES-CDB Document 33 Filed 01/10/24 Page 5 of 6
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

6

motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order nunc pro tunc). Further, the Court agrees 

that permitting Defendants leave to file an exhaustion motion promotes judicial efficiency and 

will not unduly prejudice Plaintiff.3

The Court notes Defendants are obligated to respond to Plaintiff’s request for production 

of documents by February 2, 2024. (See Doc. 32 at 6 & 8, ¶ 8.) Defendants request their 

“deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery until resolution of the related criminal case ... be 

extended to 45-days after the lift of the stay.” (Id. at 6.) In this instance, the Court will vacate the 

Discovery and Scheduling Order issued August 21, 2023 and will reissue the discovery order 

once the stay of the action pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings is lifted. The Court 

will assign a new deadline for Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery request at 

that time.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons given above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to stay this action (Doc. 32) is GRANTED;

2. The action is STAYED pending resolution of Plaintiff’s criminal case; 

3. Defendants SHALL file a status report on February 15, 2024, addressing the status 

of the criminal proceedings, and every sixty (60) days thereafter, until those 

proceedings are resolved; and

4. The Discovery and Scheduling Order issued August 21, 2023 (Doc. 28) is 

VACATED. The Court will reissue a discovery and scheduling order once the stay of 

this action has been lifted following resolution of the criminal proceedings now 

pending in the Kings County Superior Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3 18 days elapsed between the original deadline and the instant motion.

Case 1:21-cv-00818-KES-CDB Document 33 Filed 01/10/24 Page 6 of 6