Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05852/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05852-1/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN JUSTICE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-05852-EMC 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO STAY

Docket No. 32

Plaintiff Melvin Justice, Jr., proceeding pro se, has filed a § 1983 action against the City 

and County of San Francisco (“City” or “San Francisco”), the San Francisco Police Department 

(“SFPD”), and various police officers employed by the SFPD. According to Mr. Justice, on or 

about September 22, 2016, certain police officers, inter alia, unlawfully detained him, unlawfully 

administered a field sobriety test, subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment, physically 

assaulted him, coerced him into a blood draw, and/or used excessive force on him.

An initial case management conference was held in this case in November 2019, at which 

only Mr. Justice and the City made an appearance. See Docket No. 30 (minutes). At the 

conference, the City explained that there was an ongoing state criminal action against Mr. Justice 

based on the events from September 22, 2016. The City also stated that a trial in the state criminal 

action was due to go forward in December 2019 and represented that there were “overlapping 

issues” between the state criminal action and the instant action. Docket No. 30. The Court 

therefore stayed proceedings in the case at bar until the next status conference (set for January 30, 

2020). See Docket No. 30 (adding that “Plaintiff’s legal representation, exchange of Initial 

Disclosures, and service of process are to be dismissed at next conference”). 

Case 3:18-cv-05852-EMC Document 35 Filed 01/06/20 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Currently pending before the Court is the City’s motion to stay. The City now seeks “a 

complete stay of the case,” including but not limited to discovery, pending completion of the state 

court criminal proceedings. Mot. at 2. The City has made this request because the trial in the state 

criminal action has now been continued to February 10, 2020. See Def.’s RJN, Ex. B (docket 

sheet). 

The Court hereby GRANTS the City’s motion to stay. As an initial matter, the Court 

notes that Mr. Justice did not file an opposition to the motion. The Court further finds that a stay 

is warranted under Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007), and Keating v. Office of Thrift 

Supervision, 45 F.3d 322 (9th Cir. 1995). See, e.g., Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393-94 (stating that, “[i]f 

a plaintiff files a false-arrest claim before he has been convicted (or files any other claim related to 

rulings that will likely be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial), it is within the power of 

the district court, and in accord with common practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal 

case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended”); Keating, 45 F.3d at 324-25 (stating that “[t]he 

decision whether to stay civil proceedings in the face of a parallel criminal proceeding should be 

made ‘in light of the particular circumstances and competing interests involved in the case,’” 

which “means the decisionmaker should consider ‘the extent to which the defendant's fifth 

amendment rights are implicated’” and further should consider factors such as “(1) the interest of 

the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the 

potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the 

proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in the management of its 

cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources,” etc.). 

As noted above, Mr. Justice’s claims in the instant case include claims that the police 

officers unlawfully detained him and used excessive force against him. These issues will likely be 

addressed in the state criminal proceedings against Mr. Justice where the charges include, inter 

alia, reckless driving, driving under the influence, and resisting or obstructing a police officer. 

See, e.g., Martinez v. Cty. of Santa Clara, No. 16-CV-05626-LHK, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76155, 

at *9 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2017) (holding that a stay was warranted under Wallace because 

“whether or not the officers wrongfully used excessive force depends at least partly on whether 

Case 3:18-cv-05852-EMC Document 35 Filed 01/06/20 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff grabbed [officer] Jacquez and how long Plaintiff continued to hold on to Jacquez, a 

factual issue that will be addressed in the criminal proceedings”; also, the state criminal action 

included a charge of battery on officer Jacquez, which “requires a showing that ‘the custodial 

officer was acting within the scope of his or her duties’” and “[t]he determination whether Jacquez 

was acting within the scope of his duties will be relevant to whether Jacquez used excessive force 

against Plaintiff”).

Accordingly, the City’s motion to stay is granted, and the hearing on the motion is thereby 

VACATED. Proceedings in this case are stayed pending completion of the trial in the state 

criminal case against Mr. Justice. 

The Court also VACATES the further status conference set for January 30, 2020, and 

continues the matter to February 27, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. The parties shall file a joint status 

conference statement by February 20, 2020.

This order disposes of Docket No. 32.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-05852-EMC Document 35 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 3