Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01415/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01415-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANGANATH SARASWATI,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1415 WQH (POR)

ORDER

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, and DOES

1-20,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

On August 3, 2007, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint (ECF No. 1). 

On April 23, 2008, this Court issued an Order denying a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.

(ECF No. 5). The Court concluded that the Complaint adequately alleged that a municipal

policy or custom caused Plaintiff constitutional injury and that the County of San Diego was

not immune from liability. Id. at 4-7. The Court declined to abstain from exercising

jurisdiction under the doctrine of Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States,

424 U.S. 800 (1976). Id. 

On March 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 24). On

June 9, 2009, Defendant filed the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and to Abstain and

Stay or Dismiss Action. (ECF No. 29). On August 13, 2009, the Court granted Defendant’s

motion and stayed the action pursuant to the Younger [v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)]

- 1 - 07cv1415 WQH (POR)

Case 3:07-cv-01415-WQH-POR Document 47 Filed 03/22/12 Page 1 of 3
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

abstention doctrine pending resolution of state mandamus proceedings in the Superior Court

of California, County of San Diego. (ECF No. 32 at 7). 

On May 12, 2010, Defendant filed a status report and informed the Court that Plaintiff’s

writ of mandamus in the state court proceeding had been denied. (ECF No. 35). On July 28,

2010, this Court lifted the stay. (ECF No. 36). 

On August 4, 2010, Defendant filed a second Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and

to Abstain and Further Stay or Dismiss Action pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 37) On November 4, 2010 granted Defendant’s motion and

continued the stay pursuant to Younger. The Court stated: 

[D]ismissal of the federal proceedings is not proper because Plaintiff

seeks damages and injunctive relief in both the state and federal

proceedings; and, as discussed above, the State proceedings are

ongoing. Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 973; see also Offshore Sportswear,

Inc. v. Vuarnet Intern., B.V.,114 F.3d 848, 851 (9th Cir. 1997).

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings is DENIED and the Motion to Abstain and Further Stay or

Dismiss Action filed by Defendant County of San Diego is

GRANTED. (ECF No. 37). The Court stays this action pending

resolution the appeal in the California Court of Appeal, Fourth

Appellate District. Defendant County of San Diego shall file a status

report with respect to the proceedings in the state appellate court ninety

(90) days from the date of this Order, and every ninety (90) days

thereafter. 

(ECF No. 40 at 4-5). 

The parties filed status reports on February 1, 2011, May 12, 2011, August 11, 2011,

November 14, 2011, and February 13, 2012. (ECF Nos. 41-45). The most recent status report

states:

[T]his action is stayed pending resolution of related mandamus

proceedings in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego,

case no. GIC 879297, which was decided by the California Court of

Appeal, case D056676.

The Court of Appeal issued its decision in December 2011 and

remanded the case back to the Superior Court for further proceedings.

The Superior Court has not yet set dates for further proceedings.

(ECF No. 45 at 1). 

On March 6, 2012, this Court issued an Order stating:

The Court finds that Younger abstention remains appropriate pending

- 2 - 07cv1415 WQH (POR)

Case 3:07-cv-01415-WQH-POR Document 47 Filed 03/22/12 Page 2 of 3
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

resolution of the related mandamus proceedings in the Superior Court

of California, which were remanded for further proceedings in

December 2011. The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, by

no later than ten days from the date of this Order, why this case should

not be administratively closed without prejudice to any party and with

leave to be immediately reopened without further order of this Court

upon the filing of a notification that the mandamus proceedings have

concluded by any party. If the parties do not respond to this Order, the

Court will issue an order directing the Clerk of the Court to

administratively closed this case without prejudice to any party and

with leave to be immediately reopened without further order of this

Court upon the filing of a notification that the mandamus proceedings

have concluded by any party. 

(ECF No. 46 at 1-2). 

To date, no party has responded to the Order to Show Cause. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall administratively close this

case without prejudice to any party and with leave to be immediately reopened without further

order of this Court upon the filing of a notification that the mandamus proceedings have

concluded by any party. 

DATED: March 22, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 07cv1415 WQH (POR)

Case 3:07-cv-01415-WQH-POR Document 47 Filed 03/22/12 Page 3 of 3