Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00071/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00071-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOMINIC MILANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DUNCAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-00071-JDP (PC)

ORDER 

Plaintiff brought this section 1983 action alleging that the defendants, who are officers of 

the Vallejo Police Department, violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they used excessive 

force against him during a high-speed chase. ECF No. 1 at 3. Now, because plaintiff’s state 

criminal case is pending, defendants have moved to stay this action based on the abstention 

doctrine laid out in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The time period for filing an 

opposition lapsed and, on March 3, 2023, I ordered plaintiff to file an opposition or statement of 

non-opposition within twenty-one days—or face dismissal for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 24. 

Plaintiff responded to my order by filing a one-page opposition that offered no legal analysis or 

support in case law. ECF No. 25. In relevant part, plaintiff indicated only that he did not desire a 

stay. Id. For the reasons set forth below, I will grant defendants’ motion to stay.1

Under Younger v. Harris, federal courts should abstain from staying or enjoining state 

criminal prosecutions where: “(1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding 

1 The parties have consented to my jurisdiction. ECF No. 29.

Case 2:22-cv-00071-JDP Document 31 Filed 06/12/23 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

2

implicates important state interests; (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings 

to raise constitutional challenges; and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the practical 

effect of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971); see also Bean 

v. Matteucci, 986 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2021). Defendants have attached the criminal 

information and the state court docket, ECF No. 23-1 at 4-25, and ask that I take judicial notice of 

these. I will do so. U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 

244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (courts “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and 

without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at 

issue.”).

The first element is met insofar as the documents of which I have taken judicial notice 

show that state criminal proceedings against plaintiff are ongoing—a fact plaintiff has not 

disputed. ECF No. 23-1 at 23. The second element is also met because state criminal 

proceedings implicate important state interests. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) 

(“[T]he States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal 

interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court 

considering equitable types of relief.”). The latter two elements require a more detailed factual 

analysis.

I find that plaintiff will have an adequate opportunity to raise his constitutional challenge 

in state court. He has been charged with the attempted murder of a peace officer, namely 

defendant Komoda, during the pursuit leading to his arrest. ECF No. 23-1 at 15-16. Defendants 

argue that, during his criminal trial, he may raise defendants’ allegedly unlawful use of force to 

justify his own use of force against them. ECF No. 23 at 6. This may be correct. To prove the 

attempted murder of a peace officer count, the district attorney will need to show that defendant 

Komoda was “engaged in the performance of his duty.” ECF No. 23-1 at 15. This will require a 

showing that Komoda was engaged in the “lawful” performance of his duties. The California 

Criminal Jury Instructions provide that “[a] peace officer is not lawfully performing his or her 

duties if he or she is unlawfully arresting or detaining someone or using unreasonable or 

excessive force in his or her duties.” See CALCRIM No. 2670. Thus, plaintiff may raise his 

Case 2:22-cv-00071-JDP Document 31 Filed 06/12/23 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

3

claim that Komoda and the other defendants were using excessive force at the time of the 

incident.2 This analysis also informs the fourth factor and causes it to weigh in favor of 

abstention. Plaintiff’s success in the instant case would require a finding that defendants used 

excessive force against him. And such success might conflict with factual findings made in state 

court, thereby practically enjoining those procedures. 

Finally, plaintiff has not argued that any of the exceptions to Younger, such as bad faith, 

harassment, or the presence of irreparable injury, are present.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion to stay, ECF No. 23, is GRANTED and this action is STAYED 

pending resolution of plaintiff’s state court criminal proceedings. 

2. Defendants are directed to file a notice with the court upon the termination of 

plaintiff’s criminal proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2

I note that the Supreme Court has directed federal courts to assume, absent authority to 

the contrary, that state courts will afford a litigant an adequate opportunity to raise and litigate 

constitutional claims. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987).

Case 2:22-cv-00071-JDP Document 31 Filed 06/12/23 Page 3 of 3