Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00538/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00538-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKKOS GOODMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-00538-MCE-KJN

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On March 18, 2013, Plaintiff Mikkos Goodman (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for 

damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C §§ 1983, 1988, and California tort law against the County 

of San Joaquin and several individuals including Robert Cleary, a Deputy Sheriff for San 

Joaquin County. ECF No. 1. Defendant Cleary filed a motion to stay proceedings until 

January 20, 2014 pursuant to 50 U.S.C. app § 522, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 

(“SCRA”). ECF No. 10. Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant Cleary’s Motion to Stay 

Proceedings. ECF No. 14. For the following reasons, Defendant Cleary’s Motion for a 

stay until January 20, 2014 is GRANTED.1

///

///

 1 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter 

submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(g).

Case 2:13-cv-00538-MCE-KJN Document 15 Filed 12/12/13 Page 1 of 5
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

BACKGROUND2

Plaintiff’s claims arise from a physical assault and battery endured by Plaintiff 

while he was in the custody of parole agents in Stockton, California. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff 

filed his Complaint on March 18, 2013. Id. Plaintiff served Defendant Robert Clearly on 

August 29, 2013. ECF No. 6. On November 4, 2013, Defendant Clearly filed a Motion 

to Stay Proceedings until January 20, 2014, pursuant to the SCRA. ECF No. 10. 

Defendants County of San Joaquin, Adam Grubb, Jeff Robles, and Chris Rodriguez filed 

answers. ECF Nos. 8, 9, 11. On December 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Statement of NonOpposition to Defendant Cleary’s Motion. ECF No. 14.

STANDARD

The SCRA, 50 U.S.C. app § 522, allows an individual on military duty to move to 

stay any judicial or administrative proceeding initiated against him, or to move to stay the 

execution of any judgment entered against him. The SCRA applies to any civil 

proceeding in which a party (1) is in military service and (2) has received notice of the 

proceeding. Id. § 522(a).

Under the SCRA, a court shall, upon application by a servicemember, stay a 

proceeding for not less than ninety days, if the application satisfies two conditions. Id.

§ 522(b)(1)-(2). First, the application for a stay must contain a letter or other 

communication establishing that the servicemember's military duty materially affects his 

or her ability to appear and stating when he or she will be available to appear. Second,

the application must contain a letter or other communication from the servicemember's 

commanding officer stating that the servicemember's military duty prevents the 

servicemember's appearance and that leave is not authorized at the time of the letter. 

Id. § 522(b)(2). 

 2 The facts are taken, largely verbatim, from Plaintiff’s Complaint. Compl., ECF No. 1.

Case 2:13-cv-00538-MCE-KJN Document 15 Filed 12/12/13 Page 2 of 5
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 [SCRA] is always to be liberally construed to protect those who have been 

obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burdens of the nation.” Boone v. Lightner, 

319 U.S. 561, 575 (1943) (interpreting the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, a 

predecessor to the SCRA). Thus, to prevent prejudice against an absent party, courts 

may grant a stay even where a servicemember does not fully satisfy both conditions 

enumerated in section (b)(2) of the SCRA. See, e.g., Keane v. McCullen, C 07-04894 

SBA, 2009 WL 331455, *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2009) (granting a stay where a 

servicemember did not produce a letter from his commanding officer regarding his leave 

status because the court was sufficiently convinced that a stay was necessary to avoid 

undue prejudice). When determining whether a servicemember will be prejudiced by his 

or her absence from a case, the Supreme Court instructed that “[t]he discretion that is 

vested in trial courts . . . is not to be withheld on nice calculations as to whether prejudice 

may result from absence, or absence result from the service. Absence when one's 

rights or liabilities are being adjudged is usually prima facie prejudicial.” Boone, 

319 U.S. at 575.

In addition, apart from the SCRA, federal district courts retain broad discretion to 

enter a stay in appropriate circumstances. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 

(1997) (“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its 

power to control its own docket.”).

ANALYSIS

Defendant Cleary moved for a stay of proceedings in this action under the SCRA. 

ECF No. 10. In support of his motion, Defendant Cleary submitted a declaration from his 

attorney and a copy of his military orders. Id. Because this Court finds that Defendant 

Cleary meets the criteria established in 50 U.S.C. app § 522(b)(2), the Court GRANTS 

Cleary’s motion for a stay of proceedings until January 20, 2014.

///

Case 2:13-cv-00538-MCE-KJN Document 15 Filed 12/12/13 Page 3 of 5
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

As set forth above, the SCRA requires that an application for a stay include “[a] 

letter or other communication setting forth facts stating the manner in which current 

military duty requirements materially affect the servicemember's ability to appear and 

stating a date when the servicemember will be available to appear.” 50 U.S.C. app 

§ 522.

Here, Defendant Cleary’s motion states, and his military orders confirm, that he is 

currently on active duty with the United States Army and is stationed in Fort Benning, 

Georgia for basic training for approximately fourteen weeks beginning September 5, 

2013. See ECF No. 10. Cleary’s motion states that military leave is not authorized 

during his fourteen week training. Id. In addition, Cleary’s attorney maintained in his 

declaration that he will not be able to meet with or discuss his defense sufficiently with 

Cleary until he returns from active duty. Id. Cleary contends that his service will 

materially affect his duty to appear or participate in discovery until approximately 

December 20, 2013. Id. 

Given these representations, the Court finds that Cleary’s motion meets the first 

requirement for a stay under the SCRA.

The SCRA also requires that an application for a stay include “[a] letter or other 

communication from the servicemember's commanding officer stating that the 

servicemember's current military duty prevents appearance and that military leave is not 

authorized for the servicemember at the time of the letter.” 50 U.S.C. app § 522.

Here, Defendant Cleary included as an exhibit to his motion a copy of his orders 

from the Department of Defense. ECF No. 10. Cleary’s orders, sent by Stephen M. 

Hunson CPT, USA, Operations Officer, instruct Cleary to report to Basic Training in Fort 

Benning, Georgia on September 5, 2013 for approximately fourteen weeks. Although 

the orders do not indicate whether military leave is authorized, the Court finds that the 

orders are sufficient for a stay under the SCRA. While Defendant Cleary is on active 

duty, his ability to discuss the case sufficiently with counsel is limited.

Case 2:13-cv-00538-MCE-KJN Document 15 Filed 12/12/13 Page 4 of 5
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

Because Defendant Cleary’s absence may inhibit his ability to answer Plaintiff’s 

Complaint and participate in discovery, this Court finds that a stay is necessary to avoid 

undue prejudice to Defendant Cleary.

CONCLUSION

In light of the Supreme Court’s liberal construction of the SCRA, the possibility of 

prejudice to Defendant Cleary, and this Court’s inherent and broad power to control its 

docket, Defendant Cleary’s motion to stay proceedings until January 20, 2014 is 

GRANTED. Defendant Clearly is ordered to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint on or by 

January 20, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2013

Case 2:13-cv-00538-MCE-KJN Document 15 Filed 12/12/13 Page 5 of 5