Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02021/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02021-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1333in Personal Injury

---

1 

18cv2021-MMA (LL) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JANE DOE, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

D. LLOYD, 

Defendant. 

 Case No. 18cv2021-MMA (LL) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO STAY

[Doc. No. 42] 

Plaintiff Jane Doe, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Dustin Lloyd. Plaintiff moves for a temporary stay of 

the action pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against her. See Doc. No. 42. 

Defendant has not filed a response in opposition to the motion. The Court took the 

motion under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. and 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b). See Doc. No. 43. For the reasons set forth below, 

the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. 

BACKGROUND

 This action arises primarily out of Plaintiff’s alleged altercation with Defendant 

Dustin Lloyd, a Riverside County Sheriff’s Deputy. The relevant factual allegations are 

set forth in detail in the Court’s December 27, 2018 Order denying Defendant’s motion to 

Case 3:18-cv-02021-MMA-LL Document 44 Filed 10/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

18cv2021-MMA (LL) 

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

dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim against him. See Doc. No. 24. According to 

Plaintiff, her encounter with Defendant resulted in the filing of misdemeanor charges 

against her in Riverside County Superior Court. According to Plaintiff, “[t]he 

misdemeanor case has been prolonged” for various reasons and she anticipates the 

“criminal charges will be dismissed or ordered to trial proceedings” at a hearing currently 

set for November 8, 2019. Doc. No. 42 at 1-2. Plaintiff argues that a stay is necessary 

because she risks potential self-incrimination if deposed prior to the disposition of those 

proceedings. She also contends that disposition of the criminal proceedings will 

potentially impact the parties’ ability to settle this case, as well as matters related to trial. 

LEGAL STANDARD

 A court’s “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every 

court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and 

effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 

(1936). The Ninth Circuit has instructed: 

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, 324-25 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting and 

citing Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1989)). 

// 

// 

Case 3:18-cv-02021-MMA-LL Document 44 Filed 10/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

18cv2021-MMA (LL) 

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

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, this District’s Civil Local Rules provide “[i]f an opposing 

party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that 

failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by 

the court.” SD CivLR 7.1.f.3.c. The Ninth Circuit has held a district court may properly 

grant an unopposed motion pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does 

not require, the granting of a motion for failure to respond. See generally, Ghazali v. 

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court has the option of granting Plaintiff’s 

motion based on Defendant’s failure to file a written response. The Court is inclined to 

do so but notes that Plaintiff’s motion has substantive merit as well. 

Upon due consideration of the Keating factors set forth above, the Court finds that 

a temporary stay of this action is appropriate pending the disposition of the criminal 

proceedings against Plaintiff in state court. Neither Plaintiff, Defendant, nor any 

interested third parties will suffer prejudice as a result of a temporary stay of the 

proceedings in this Court. Moreover, Plaintiff asserts a legitimate concern regarding 

potential self-incrimination and the disposition of Plaintiff’s criminal charges may 

otherwise impact certain claims and issues in this action. 

CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and STAYS this 

action pending the disposition of the pending criminal charges against Plaintiff in 

Riverside County Superior Court. The Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to timely advise the 

Court in writing via a “Status Report” of the final disposition of those proceedings, at 

which time the Court will lift the stay of these proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: October 24, 2019 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-02021-MMA-LL Document 44 Filed 10/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3