Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00225/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00225-8/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 - 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIPE GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

ORDER

vs.

JG GRIMM, et al.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Stay All Further Proceedings (Doc. # 124).

Background

On January 30, 2006, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing the complaint (Doc. # 1).

Plaintiff has amended the complaint three times. On July 13, 2007, Plaintiff filed the third

amended complaint (“TAC”) (Doc. # 90, 101), which is the operative pleading in this case.

The TAC alleges that Plaintiff is a state prisoner. The TAC alleges that on May 1, 2005, San

Diego Sheriff’s Deputies James Grimm, Gerardo J. Grijalva, Bruce E. Hightower, Aaron K.

Rhinelander, Andrew P. Setter, James E. Swiney, Jacob MacLeod, Michael Massey, and

Bridget Ann Cartier violated his rights as protected by the United States Constitution when

they used excessive force on him during an altercation, and were deliberately indifferent to his

medical needs thereafter. 

On March 3, 2008, this Court issued an order dismissing the TAC’s claim for injunctive

relief and striking allegations related to Defendant Longsdale (Doc. # 113). 

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 127 Filed 10/17/08 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 - 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

On April 14, 2008, United States Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis issued an order

regulating discovery and other pretrial proceedings (“Pretrial Order”) (Doc. # 118). The

Pretrial Order provided that “[a]ll motions, other than motions to amend or join parties, or

motions in limine, shall be filed so as to be heard on or before June 20, 2008.” Pretrial Order,

p. 1 (emphasis in original). The Pretrial order also scheduled a mandatory settlement

conference for May 22, 2008, and a final pretrial conference for August 4, 2008. 

On June 12, 2008, Defendants filed the Motion for a Stay of All Further Proceedings

(“Motion to Stay”). The Motion to Stay states that Defendant Bruce E. Hightower is a

Lieutenant Colonel in the Active Reserves of the United States Army; that in February, 2008,

the Army notified Hightower that he had been recalled to active duty, which was to commence

on February 17, 2008; and that his tour was slated to last 400 days to March 22, 2009. The

Motion to Stay contends that Hightower will be stationed in Kuwait and will not be able to

arrange for furlough or temporary leave from his service, and will not be able to participate in

any litigation-related activities from afar. The Motion to Stay “seeks to stay litigation of

Garcia’s instant claim against all Defendants until Hightower returns from military service.”

Mot. to Stay, p. 2. Defendants contend that Hightower is entitled to a stay pursuant to the

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. Appx. sections 501, et seq. Defendants request

that the court exercise its discretion to stay proceedings against all Defendants on grounds that

doing so is in the interests of all parties and serves judicial economy. Defendants state that

“Hightower participated in the incident and also supervised, authorized and directed the actions

of some of the other defendants in their efforts to gain control of Plaintiff during the incident,

and the interests of all parties in this case would be advanced by a stay of proceedings.” Id.

at 4. Defendants state that “[f]or all parties and in Hightower’s situation in particular, a verdict

against any of the parties could hinder or outright undermine each one’s case under res judicata

or collateral estoppel principles.” Id. 

In support of the Motion to Stay, Defendants submitted the Declaration of Kevin G.

Kennedy. Kennedy attests that he arranged Hightower’s videotaped sworn testimony when

he found out that Hightower would be summoned to active military duty. Kennedy attests that

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 127 Filed 10/17/08 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 - 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

Hightower agreed to waive his appearance at trial if Plaintiff agreed to allow his sworn

statement to be admitted into evidence, but that Plaintiff “rejected the offer to proceed in

Hightower’s absence by stipulating to admit his sworn statement on the grounds Hightower’s

presence was necessary at trial to prove his allegations against Hightower and all other

Defendants.” Kennedy Decl., ¶¶ 2-7. Defendants also submitted a letter from Hightower’s

commanding officer stating that Hightower is currently serving in Iraq, and is not authorized

to will not be given leave to attend any civilian judicial or administrative hearings. Kennedy

Decl., Exhibit A. 

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the Motion to Stay. 

Applicable Law

The purpose of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“Relief Act”) “is to suspend

enforcement of civil liabilities of persons in military service of the United States in order to

enable such persons to devote their entire energy to the defense of the Nation.” Engstrom v.

First National Bank of Eagle Lake, 47 F.3d 1459, 1462 (5th Cir. 1995). Section 522 of the

Relief Act authorizes a court to stay civil proceedings when a servicemember has received

notice of the action or proceeding. Section 522 states:

(b) Stay of proceedings.

(1) Authority for stay. At any stage before final judgment in a civil

action or proceeding in which a servicemember described in subsection

(a) is a party, the court may on its own motion and shall, upon application

by the servicemember, stay the action for a period of not less than 90

days, if the conditions in paragraph (2) are met.

(2) Conditions for a stay. An application for a stay under paragraph (1)

shall include the following:

(A) 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.

(B) 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. Appx. § 522. Section 525 of the Relief Act provides: “If a servicemember is a

codefendant with others who are not in military service and who are not entitled to the relief

and protections provided under this Act, the plaintiff may proceed against those other

defendants with the approval of the court.” 50 U.S.C. Appx. § 525. A district court has

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 127 Filed 10/17/08 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 - 06cv225 WQH (PCL)

inherent power to stay its proceedings as incident to its power to control its own docket.

Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Relief Act is to be “liberally

construed” and applied in a “broad spirit of gratitude towards service personnel.” Engstrom,

47 F.3d at 1462.

Ruling of the Court

Defendants have demonstrated that Hightower’s term of active service was four

hundred (400) days, to March 22, 2009. Defendants have complied with section 522 by

submitting a letter from Hightower’s commanding officer stating that Hightower is not

authorized military leave to attend proceedings in this lawsuit. The Court concludes that

Hightower has satisfied the conditions for a stay under section 522 of the Relief Act, and is

entitled to a stay until his term of active service is completed. Plaintiff’s claims against

Hightower are intertwined with Plaintiff’s claims against the other Defendants. Defendants

have demonstrated that Plaintiff rejected the offer to proceed in Hightower’s absence by

stipulating to admit Hightower’s sworn statement at trial. The Court also notes that the case

has proceeded to an advanced stage, as evidenced by the Scheduling Order requiring all

motions other than motions to ament or join parties, or motions in limine, to be filed so as to

be heard on or before June 20, 2008, and scheduling a pretrial conference for August 4, 2008.

 In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that staying the proceedings as to all Defendants

is in the interests of all parties and serves judicial economy. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Stay All Further Proceedings (Doc. #

124) is GRANTED. All proceedings in the above-captioned action are stayed until April 6,

2009. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a pretrial conference on

May 4, 2009, at 11:00 A.M. The parties shall file a Pretrial Order in compliance with Local

Civil Rule 16.1(f) on or before April 27, 2009. 

DATED: October 17, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00225-CAB-PCL Document 127 Filed 10/17/08 Page 4 of 4