Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01093/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01093-7/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

MARIO A. VALENZUELA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTIESTEBAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01093-NONE-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STAY CIVIL ACTION UNTIL 

STATE’S CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS 

AGAINST PLAINTIFF ARE RESOLVED

(ECF No. 34)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO 

FILE STATUS REPORTS REGARDING 

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

NINETY (90) DAY DEADLINE

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Mario A. Valenzuela (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds 

against Defendants Santiesteban, Rodriguez, and Alejo for excessive force in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment and against Defendant Perez for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment, arising from the incident on June 22, 2019.

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ Notice of Related Cases, Motion to Stay, and 

Request for Judicial Notice, filed March 1, 2021. (ECF Nos. 33, 34.) Defendants move to stay 

this civil action until Plaintiff’s criminal charges in Kings County Superior Court, case number 

20CM-1621, arising from the same June 22, 2019 incident involved in this action, are resolved. 

(ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition, and the deadline to do so has expired. The 

Case 1:20-cv-01093-JLT-BAM Document 38 Filed 04/09/21 Page 1 of 6
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

motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

II. Discussion

A. Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents: 

(1) Criminal Complaint in People v. Mario Alberto Valenzuela, Kings County Superior Court 

case number 20CM-1621; and (2) Criminal docket in People v. Mario Alberto Valenzuela, Kings 

County Superior Court case number 20CM-1621. (ECF No. 34-2, Exhs. A, B.)

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits the Court to take judicial notice at any time. A 

judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either: 

(1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or (2) capable of accurate 

and ready determination by resort to sources who accuracy reasonably cannot be questioned. 

Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Courts may take judicial notice of facts related to the case before it. 

Amphibious Partners, LLC v. Redman, 534 F.3d 1357, 1361–62 (10th Cir. 2008) (district court 

was entitled to take judicial notice of its memorandum of order and judgment from previous case 

involving same parties). This Court may judicially notice the records and filing of other court 

proceedings. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); Bennett v. 

Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 802 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002). In addition, a court may take judicial 

notice of undisputed matters of public record, including papers filed with the court and the 

records of state agencies and administrative bodies. Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas 

Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861, 866 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004); Lundquist v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 394 F. Supp. 2d 

1230, 1242–42 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (stating that court may take judicial notice of records and reports 

of administrative bodies). 

Because the Court may take judicial notice of public records, including duly recorded 

documents under Rule 201(b)(2), Defendants’ request to take judicial notice of the abovementioned documents is granted.

B. Motion to Stay

The district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to

control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. North 

Case 1:20-cv-01093-JLT-BAM Document 38 Filed 04/09/21 Page 2 of 6
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

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). A stay is discretionary and the “party requesting a stay 

bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken 

v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433–34 (2009). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” 

Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066–67 (9th Cir. 2007). 

If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it. 

Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court should “balance the length of 

any stay against the strength of the justification given for it.” Id.

“The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the 

outcome of criminal proceedings.” Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th 

Cir. 1995). “In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, 

[simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under our

jurisprudence.” Id. “Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil 

proceedings . . . ‘when the interests of justice seem[ ] to require such action.’ ” Id. (citations 

omitted).

1. Same Nucleus of Facts

When a civil plaintiff brings claims under § 1983 that are “related to rulings that will 

likely be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial,” it is “common practice” for the court 

“to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended.” 

Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393–94 (2007); see also Fed. Saving & Loan Ins. Corp. v. 

Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 1989). 

When determining whether a stay is appropriate, courts look to whether the criminal 

defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights may be implicated by the civil proceedings. Keating, 45 

F.3d at 324 (citing Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 902). Courts also consider (1) the interest of the 

plaintiff in proceeding with the litigation and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff of a delay; 

(2) the convenience of the court and the efficient use of judicial resources; (3) the interests of 

third parties; and (4) the interests of the public. Keating, 45 F.3d at 324–25.

Here, the civil rights action implicates Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment rights. The facts and 

circumstances underlying Plaintiff’s criminal prosecution for battery on a non-confined person, 

Case 1:20-cv-01093-JLT-BAM Document 38 Filed 04/09/21 Page 3 of 6
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

Correctional Officer C. Santiesteban, by a prisoner while confined in California State Prison and 

custodial possession of weapon, substantially overlaps with the excessive force and failure to 

protect claims at issue in this case. Both cases involve the June 22, 2019 incident between 

Plaintiff and Defendant Santiesteban and will involve substantially all of the same parties and 

witnesses. Thus, if this case proceeds, Defendants will seek discovery from Plaintiff, and he will 

be required to respond under oath. The discovery will involve Plaintiff’s alleged misconduct on 

June 22, 2019. Thus, there exists a substantial risk of prejudice to Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment 

rights.1 Furthermore, if Plaintiff invokes his Fifth Amendment rights it may impede Defendants’ 

discovery. Jones v. Conte, No. C045312S1, 2005 WL 1287017, at *1 (N.D. Apr. 19, 2005) 

(finding that a stay of the civil case involving defendant in criminal action was appropriate 

“because [i]f discovery moves forward, [the] defendant will be faced with the difficult choice 

between asserting [his] right against self-incrimination, thereby inviting prejudice in the civil 

case, or waiving those rights, thereby courting liability in the civil case.”) (internal quotations and 

citation omitted).

Likewise, the other Keating factors also support a stay. Any prejudice to Plaintiff is 

minimal given that both proceedings involve the similar facts and witnesses, and it is unlikely that 

evidence will be lost or memories will fade with passage of time. McCormick v. Rexroth, No. C 

09-4188 JT, 2010 WL 934242, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2010). In addition, the public interest 

weighs in favor of a stay because “[t]he public has an interest in ‘ensuring that the criminal 

process is not subverted’ by ongoing civil cases.” Douglas v. United States, No. C 03-4518, 2006

WL 2038375, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2006).

Furthermore, if a stay is not granted the defenses available may be limited. If the court in 

the criminal action considers Plaintiff’s factual allegations regarding the June 22, 2019 incident, 

such findings may be binding in this Court. Until resolution of the criminal proceedings, it is 

unclear whether certain defenses are available, such as, a Heck bar or issue preclusion. See

1

Indeed, Defendants note that Plaintiff’s attorney in the criminal proceedings has objected to 

Defendants’ taking of Plaintiff’s deposition in this action while the criminal case is still pending. 

(ECF No. 34-1, ¶ 5.)

Case 1:20-cv-01093-JLT-BAM Document 38 Filed 04/09/21 Page 4 of 6
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

Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393-94 (noting that the question of whether a section 1983 action is barred 

by Heck is more difficult to answer where the plaintiff is facing charges of resisting arrest or 

similar conduct arising from the same incident he is claiming excessive force, a stay may be 

appropriate until such time as the underlying criminal proceedings are conducted. “If the plaintiff 

is ultimately convicted, and if the stayed civil action would impugn that conviction, Heck will 

require dismissal; otherwise, the civil action will proceed, absent some other bar to suit.”) 

(citation omitted); see also Vivas v. Cty. of Riverside, No. EDCV 15-1912-VAP (DTBx), 2016 

WL 9001020, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2016) (staying excessive force case where criminal 

prosecution for resisting arrest was pending).

Judicial efficiency also favors imposition of a stay because Plaintiff’s criminal action 

involves many of the same facts. Accordingly, the Court will stay this action until Plaintiff’s 

criminal charges have been resolved.

2. Younger Abstention

Absent extraordinary circumstances, federal courts may not interfere with ongoing state 

criminal proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43–54 (1971); Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. 

v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 77 (2013). A court may consider sua sponte whether Younger abstention 

should be invoked at any point in the litigation. H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 

613 (9th Cir. 2000). Abstention is proper regardless of whether the applicant seeks declaratory 

relief, injunctive relief, or damages. See Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986) 

(“When a state criminal prosecution has begun, the Younger rule directly bars a declaratory 

judgment action” as well as a section 1983 action for declaratory relief and damages “where such 

an action would have a substantially disruptive effect upon ongoing state criminal proceedings.”); 

Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 984 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (Younger abstention applies 

to actions for damages as it does to declaratory and injunctive relief). 

A court may apply a stay under Younger when: “(1) the state court proceedings are 

ongoing; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings 

provide an adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional claims.” Escobar v. LASD Male Doe, 

No. CV-17-7352-DSF (SP), 2017 WL 7050642, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2017) (citing 

Case 1:20-cv-01093-JLT-BAM Document 38 Filed 04/09/21 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982)). 

Even if a stay is not warranted under the former analysis, a stay is warranted under 

Younger. 

Here, Plaintiff’s criminal case is ongoing and implicates the State of California’s 

important interest in ensuring the integrity of its criminal justice system. See Kelly v. Robinson, 

479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (“the 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.”). Indeed, Plaintiff may raise constitutional issues in 

the state proceedings. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987) (“a federal court should 

assume that state procedures will afford an adequate remedy, in the absence of unambiguous 

authority to the contrary.”). In addition, Plaintiff is seeking damages in this civil action. 

Accordingly, it is clear that principles of judicial comity authorize the Court to stay this action 

until Plaintiff’s criminal proceedings have concluded.

III. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion to stay civil action, (ECF No. 34), is GRANTED;

2. The instant action is STAYED pending resolution of Plaintiff’s criminal case; and

3. Defendants shall file a status report within ninety (90) days from the date of service of 

this order, and every sixty (60) days thereafter, addressing the status of the criminal 

proceedings until they are resolved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01093-JLT-BAM Document 38 Filed 04/09/21 Page 6 of 6