Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00036/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00036-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL CARLOS GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-00036-DAD-CSK (PS)

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS LIFTING THE 

STAY IN THIS CASE

(Doc. No. 21)

Plaintiff Daniel Carlos Garcia proceeds pro se in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On February 7, 2024, the previously assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that the stay in this case be lifted and that defendants’ motion to 

dismiss be granted. (Doc. No. 21 at 9–10.) Specifically, the previously assigned magistrate 

judge found that this federal civil rights action no longer needed to be stayed because “[p]laintiff 

was again convicted in late 2023.” (Id. at 3.) Those findings and recommendations were served 

on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen 

(14) days after service. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff was granted a sixty-one (61) day extension of time to 

file objections to the findings and recommendations on March 1, 2024. (Doc. No. 25.) Plaintiff 

timely filed his objections on April 30, 2024. (Doc. No. 27.)

Case 2:21-cv-00036-DAD-CSK Document 28 Filed 11/08/24 Page 1 of 4
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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the 

court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

undersigned will decline to adopt the pending findings and recommendations.

This case had previously been stayed on April 26, 2022 in the “interests of judicial 

economy[]” because plaintiff was awaiting trial on an underlying state criminal charge. (Doc. 

No. 18.) In his objections, plaintiff contends that this stay should be continued under the Younger 

abstention doctrine because final judgment in his state criminal case has not yet been entered 

since he has not been sentenced, he has a pending state habeas corpus action, and he has a 

pending federal habeas corpus action. (Doc. No. 27 at 3.) 

“A federal court may abstain under Younger in three categories of cases: ‘(1) parallel, 

pending state criminal proceedings, (2) state civil proceedings that are akin to criminal 

prosecutions, and (3) state civil proceedings that implicate a [s]tate’s interest in enforcing the 

orders and judgments of its courts.’” Herrera v. City of Palmdale, 918 F.3d 1037, 1043–44 (9th 

Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). “To warrant Younger abstention, a state civil action . . . must also 

satisfy a three-part inquiry: the state proceeding must be (1) ‘ongoing,” (2) ‘implicate important 

state interests,’ and (3) provide an ‘adequate opportunity . . . to raise constitutional challenges.’” 

Id. at 1044 (quoting Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. V. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 

(1982)). The Ninth Circuit has held that, when Younger abstention is granted on damages claims, 

a stay is required. Id., at 1043; Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 968–69 (9th Cir. 2004).

For the reasons explained below, the undersigned finds that Younger abstention continues 

to be warranted in this case. This is because there remains an ongoing state court criminal 

proceeding, since petitioner has not yet been sentenced and no final judgment has been entered.

1

 

(Doc. No. 27 at 31–34.) “[C]ourts in the Ninth Circuit have found that application of the 

Younger abstention doctrine hinges on the pending nature of the state criminal matter — not the 

procedural stage at which the pending state criminal matter is.” Timberlake v. Santoro, No. 1:20-

1

 The docket in the Riverside County Superior Court indicates that in the related criminal case, 

plaintiff ’s next appearance is scheduled for November 13, 2024, for an ex parte hearing on 

“disclosure of potential relationship between judge” as well as sentencing.

Case 2:21-cv-00036-DAD-CSK Document 28 Filed 11/08/24 Page 2 of 4
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

cv-00013-NONE-SKO, 2021 WL 3771802, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2021) (collecting cases); 

see also Laine v. Cnty. Of Contra Costa, No. 21-cv-10052-JST, 2022 WL 20275203, at *3 (N.D. 

Cal. Jan. 5, 2022) (holding that, when plaintiff was convicted but had not yet been sentenced, 

Younger abstention was appropriate); Embry v. Johnson, No. 1:21-cv-00082-NONE-JLT, 2021 

WL 2016049, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 20, 2021) (“Petitioner’s state court judgment is not yet 

final.”) (citing Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 156 (2007) (finding that the imposition of 

sentence is the final judgment in a criminal case)); cf Torres v. Godwin, No. 18-cv-9469-JVS-KS, 

2022 WL 2902777, at *7 (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2022) (holding that abstention was not appropriate 

when petitioner’s direct appeal had already concluded and a final sentence had been imposed, but 

there was a pending post-conviction petition for resentencing brought under California Penal 

Code § 1170.95). 

Moreover, the still pending proceeding in the Riverside County Superior Court implicates 

an important state interest in that it involves the administration of California’s criminal justice 

system. See Bowell v. Paramo, No. 17-cv-09313-TJH-MAA, 2018 WL 4735721, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 

Aug. 6, 2018) (citing Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986)). 

Because Younger abstention is appropriate and plaintiff seeks damages, the court must 

maintain the stay on this case. Evans v. Hepworth, 433 F. Supp. 3d 1171, 1179 (D. Idaho 2020) 

(citing Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 978).2

Accordingly,

1. The court declines to adopt the pending findings and recommendations issued on 

February 7, 2024 (Doc. No. 21);

2. All pleading, discovery, and motion practice in this action remain STAYED

pending entry of a final judgment in plaintiff’s criminal case currently pending in 

the Riverside County Superior Court; and 

/////

2

 The court need not, and at this time does not, express any opinion as to whether continuation of 

the stay would be appropriate if plaintiff’s state court judgment of conviction becomes final but 

his state or federal habeas actions attacking that conviction remain pending. 

Case 2:21-cv-00036-DAD-CSK Document 28 Filed 11/08/24 Page 3 of 4
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

3. This action is referred back to the newly assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-00036-DAD-CSK Document 28 Filed 11/08/24 Page 4 of 4