Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00346/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00346-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEANNA D. RICE, et al.,

Plaintiffs, CIV. NO. S-04-0346 LKK GGH 

vs.

CITY OF VACAVILLE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Previously pending on this court’s law and motion calendar for September 8,

2005, was defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff Deanna Rice’s deposition, and mental

examination of plaintiffs Deanna Rice and Andrew Bedenfield Jr. At hearing, the parties were

directed to submit statements regarding the issues of whether the case should be stayed due to an

ongoing federal criminal prosecution involving the possibility that Ms. Rice would invoke the

Fifth Amendment at her deposition, whether the action is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994), and the extent of ongoing mental distress of plaintiffs Deanna Rice

and Andrew Bedenfield, Jr. in order to determine whether mental examinations are appropriate. 

Having received the parties’ statements and reviewed the record, the court now issues the

following order and findings and recommendations.

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-00346-LKK -GGH Document 45 Filed 10/05/05 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

2

BACKGROUND

This case is proceeding on the complaint filed February 18, 2004. Plaintiffs allege

that defendant officers unlawfully entered her home without a search warrant. Deanna Rice

claims they searched the house while detaining her outside, and terrorized her minor children

inside the house, causing Andrew Bedenfield, Jr. to suffer an asthma attack. They also allegedly

took her personal property worth over $10,000. Claims are for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for

unreasonable search and seizure, violation of custom, policy, and practice, and violation of civil

rights; false arrest and imprisonment; conversion; violation of civil rights under California law;

negligent infliction of emotional distress; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages.

Supplemental expert reports are to be filed by October 16, 2005. The discovery

cutoff is November 25, 2005. Trial is set for August 1, 2006. Depositions of three police officer

defendants are scheduled for October 3 and 4, 2005.

DISCUSSION

1. Magistrate Judge’s Authority

Magistrates judge are without authority to stay actions absent consent. See, e.g.

Reynaga v. Cammisa, 971 F.2d 414 (9th Cir. 1992); accord, State of New York v. United States

Metals Refining Co., 771 F.2d 796, 801 (3rd Cir. 1985) (orders which restrain or direct the

conduct of the parties not characterized as an appealable injunction unless the restraint goes to

the merits of the action). An order to stay this action is an “injunction” beyond the undersigned’s

authority because it is not a decision on the merits of any claim nor otherwise dispositive of the

case. Therefore, the decision whether to stay the case will require findings and

recommendations.

2. Stay of the Action Due to Ongoing Criminal Prosecution

Plaintiff Deanna Rice is currently incarcerated and undergoing criminal

prosecution based on the search at issue. Although, according to defendants, plaintiff has so far

Case 2:04-cv-00346-LKK -GGH Document 45 Filed 10/05/05 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

3

refused to undergo deposition because she “is not in a good place right now” due to her

incarceration, plaintiff represents that she would be willing to undergo a deposition in two parts. 

She could currently testify about matters not related to the contents of the house and car at 106 El

Cerrito Way, or her relationship with Andrew Bedenfield, Sr. She states that in about three or

four months, she could testify to all matters without invoking the Fifth Amendment. Rice’s

criminal defense attorney will be available on Mondays, or around Thanksgiving or Christmas, to

attend her deposition. The prospect of such protracted proceedings raises the issue of whether

the action should be stayed pending resolution of Rice’s criminal matter.

The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil

proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. Federal

Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th

Cir.1989); Securities & Exchange Comm'n v. Dresser Indus., 628

F.2d 1368, 1375 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993, 101 S.Ct.

529, 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980). “In the absence of substantial

prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, [simultaneous]

parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under

our jurisprudence.” Dresser, 628 F.2d at 1374. “Nevertheless, a

court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings ... ‘when

the interests of justice seem [ ] to require such action.’” Id. at 1375

(quoting United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n. 27, 90 S.Ct.

763, 769 n. 27, 25 L.Ed.2d 1 (1970)).

The 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.” Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 902. This means the decisionmaker

should consider “the extent to which the defendant’s fifth

amendment rights are implicated.” Id. In addition, the

decisionmaker should generally consider the following factors: 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; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the

civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil

and criminal litigation. Id. at 903.

Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Plaintiff argues that she is anxious to preserve the record regarding events which

took place over two years ago. She contends that the issues here involve separate issues from

Case 2:04-cv-00346-LKK -GGH Document 45 Filed 10/05/05 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

4

peripheral matters such as the contents of the house or car. 

The prejudice to defendants outweighs any potential harm to plaintiff. Under

plaintiff’s proposal, defendants would have to depose her twice, allowing for her to shield

unfavorable answers behind the Fifth Amendment on the first go round, possibly requiring

defendants to file a motion to compel. Unlike in Federal Trade Commission v. J.K. Publications,

Inc., 99 F. Supp.2d 1176, 1198 (C.D. Cal. 2000), the criminal charges here do not relate to acts

occurring after the commencement of the civil case. Rather, the criminal charges are based on

the search at issue here, which plaintiff claims to have been unlawful. Therefore, under Federal

Trade Commission, the burden on Ms. Rice’s Fifth Amendment privilege is not minimal.

Furthermore, as pointed out by defendants, plaintiff has not given a basis for her

estimate of being able to fully testify at deposition in three to four months. The second part of

the deposition most likely would take place after the November 25, 2005 discovery cutoff. This

procedure would unnecessarily cause delays and costs to defendants. The potential cost to the

court in terms of docket congestion as a result of discovery motions would also be significant. 

Judicial resources should not be expended to ensure that issues are resolved without obstruction

by concerns of self-incrimination. Javier H. v. Garcia-Botello, 218 F.R.D. 72, 75

(W.D.N.Y.2003). There is also the potential for problems caused to others involved in Rice’s

criminal case, such as her defense lawyer who will need to ensure that she does not incriminate

herself, and the government, who will need to protect the integrity of its criminal investigation. 

Although the public has an interest in speedy resolution of cases, it also has an interest in

efficient resolution of cases, and the potential for piecemeal litigation here is not efficient. The

public also has an interest in maintaining the integrity of the outcome of both the criminal and the

civil cases. Additionally, there may be factual issues common to both the criminal and civil

cases, which may be conclusively determined in the criminal case, and thus pared down for the

civil case. Bureerong v. Uvawas, 167 F.R.D. 83, 87 (C.D. Cal. 1996). Also, the extent of 

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-00346-LKK -GGH Document 45 Filed 10/05/05 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

5

applicability of Heck, if at all, will be more easily determined based on a complete criminal

record.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ August 18, 2005 motion to

compel the deposition of Deanna Rice and mental examinations of Deanna Rice and Andrew

Bedenfield, Jr., is vacated from the calendar.

For the reasons stated herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be stayed

pending resolution of plaintiff Deanna Rice’s criminal prosecution. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 10/4/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Case 2:04-cv-00346-LKK -GGH Document 45 Filed 10/05/05 Page 5 of 5