Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05453/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05453-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH WAYNE CANDLER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

J.S. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-5453 MMC (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

STAY; DENYING MOTION TO

COMPEL

(Docket Nos. 26 & 29)

Keith Wayne Candler, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated in Salinas Valley

State Prison (“SVSP”), filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against various SVSP officials. After reviewing the complaint, the Court found cognizable

plaintiff’s excessive force claims against defendants J. Abuyen, R. Machuca, J. Pacheco,

and M. Banuelos, and plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical

needs against defendants D. Rocha (“Rocha”), H. Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) and J. Vasquez

(“Vasquez”). Now before the Court is defendants’ motion to stay the action until January

2007, when Vasquez is expected to return from active military service. Plaintiff has filed an

opposition to defendants’ motion, as well as a motion to compel discovery.

The 1940 Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act (“Act”) gives federal courts

discretion to stay legal proceedings during, and up to ninety days after, a defendant’s active

Case 3:04-cv-05453-MMC Document 32 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

military service. 50 U.S.C. §§ 510, 511(4), 525(a). As relevant to the instant action, it is

undisputed that defendant Vasquez is a member of the Army National Guard, that he was

ordered into active military service in July 2005, that he is currently stationed in an unknown

location overseas, and that his tour of active duty is expected to last until January 2007. It is

also undisputed that defense counsel is not able to communicate with Vasquez due to his

military service. Thus, if the case were to proceed to trial before or within several months of 

January 2007, it is unlikely that Vasquez would be able to participate meaningfully in the

defense of plaintiff’s claims against him.

Nevertheless, it appears from the facts alleged in the complaint that Vasquez is not so

dissimilarly situated from defendants Rocha and Gonzalez that any dispositive motion filed

on their behalf could not be filed on Vasquez’s behalf as well. If, however, counsel is of the

opinion that the filing of such motion is not feasible at this time as to Vasquez, counsel shall

so indicate in lieu of filing the motion on behalf of Vasquez, and Vasquez will be permitted

to file a dispositive motion following his return. Similarly, if a dispositive motion on behalf

of Vasquez is filed and denied before his return, such motion may be renewed thereafter if

Vasquez is able to provide additional information in support thereof. Finally, if upon

Vasquez’s return, Vasquez has evidence bearing on a dispositive motion filed and denied on

behalf of any other defendant, such defendant likewise may move to renew that defendant’s

dispositive motion. 

In sum, the absence of Vasquez does not require a stay of the proceedings as to any

defendant at this stage of the litigation. If, following the resolution of any dispositive motion

filed pursuant to the provisions outlined below, a trial of this matter will be necessary,

defendants may renew their request for a stay at that time. 

Lastly, as noted, plaintiff has filed a motion to compel discovery of documents from

defendants. Plaintiff may not file a motion to compel discovery until he satisfies the “meet

and confer” requirements of the discovery rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(A). It is clear

from plaintiff’s motion that he has not done so. 

//

Case 3:04-cv-05453-MMC Document 32 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby orders as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion for a stay is DENIED without prejudice to defendants’

renewing such motion following the resolution of any dispositive motion filed pursuant to

the following paragraph. 

2. Within sixty days of the date this order is filed, defendants shall file a motion

for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, or shall indicate they are of the

opinion that these claims cannot be resolved by such motion, in accordance with the May

13, 2005, Order of Service in this matter. All of the provisions of the Order of Service not

inconsistent with this order remain in effect.

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 26 and 29.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 29, 2005

_________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05453-MMC Document 32 Filed 09/29/05 Page 3 of 3