Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01902/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01902-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Christensen
Defendant
City of Lafayette
Defendant
County of Contra Costa
Defendant
Steve Harrison
Defendant
Michael Marshall
Defendant
Michael Schock
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SCHOCK,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF LAFAYETTE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01902-HSG 

ORDER EXTENDING STAY

Re: Dkt. No. 40

On November 16, 2015, Defendants City of Lafayette, County of Contra Costa, Eric 

Christensen, Steve Harrison, and Michael Marshall filed the pending administrative motion to 

continue the stay of this action. Dkt. No. 40. For the reasons stated below, the motion is 

GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

The events on which Plaintiff Michael Schock’s complaint is based took place on April 2, 

2013. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 16. Plaintiff filed this civil action on April 24, 2014. On September 26, 2014, 

the Court stayed the case until April 1, 2015, in light of an ongoing criminal proceeding in Contra 

Costa County Superior Court based on the same April 2, 2013 events as this civil proceeding. 

Dkt. No. 33. The Court further stayed the case—based on the parties’ joint agreement—on 

February 25, 2015, Dkt. No. 36, and July 2, 2015, Dkt. No. 39. Under the Court’s July 2 Order, 

the case was stayed until November 1, 2015.

The state criminal proceeding is still pending. A further trial setting hearing in Contra 

Costa County Superior Court is scheduled for December 28, 2015. Dkt. No. 43 at 2. Plaintiff has 

waived his right to a speedy trial in the state criminal proceeding. Id.

Case 4:14-cv-01902-HSG Document 44 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

II. DISCUSSION

“[T]he 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). In order to issue a 

stay, courts consider: (1) “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay,” (2) 

“the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and (3) “the 

orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and 

questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 

265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55). Whether to stay an action is a matter 

entrusted to the discretion of the district court. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 254 (“How this can best be 

done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an 

even balance.”).

Plaintiff argues that he will be prejudiced by a further stay because he will be “unable to 

preserve percipient witness testimony.” Dkt. No. 41 at 3. But Plaintiff will be given a full 

opportunity in the state criminal proceeding to elicit and preserve witness testimony, and Plaintiff 

may defend against his state criminal charges “by setting forth evidence that the officers 

unlawfully arrested [him] and/or used unreasonable excessive force to effect [his] arrest[],” just as 

he seeks to do in this federal civil rights action. Quesada v. City of Antioch, No. 08-cv-01567-JL, 

at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2008). Moreover, Plaintiff has waived his speedy trial right in the state 

criminal proceeding, Dkt. No. 43 at 2, which strongly indicates that he is at least partially 

responsible for the delay in resolving the underlying facts. Accordingly, the Court finds that a 

further stay will not result in material damage to Plaintiff’s case.

Furthermore, the Court finds that allowing the case to go forward at this stage would 

prejudice Defendants. Even if Plaintiff agrees to waive his Fifth Amendment right to remain 

silent and fully participates in civil discovery, Defendants would still be prejudiced by their 

inability to make arguments under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), at the motion to 

dismiss stage. See Van Dusen v. City of Oakland, No. 13-cv-05023-HSG, 2015 WL 1800587, at 1 

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2015) (granting motion to dismiss on Heck grounds); Dkt. No. 33 (Initial Stay 

Case 4:14-cv-01902-HSG Document 44 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Order) at 1 (“[P]articularly given the impact of the criminal proceedings under Heck . . . , the 

circumstances warrant a stay of limited duration.”). For similar reasons, judicial economy is better 

served by staying this civil action until the criminal proceeding is fully concluded. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds in its discretion that an extension of the stay in this 

action is warranted. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ administrative motion to 

continue the stay of this action and STAYS the case until March 1, 2016, or the conclusion of the 

state criminal proceeding, whichever occurs first. The parties shall file a brief joint statement 

notifying the Court if (1) a trial date is set, or (2) the criminal proceeding concludes. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

12/8/2015

Case 4:14-cv-01902-HSG Document 44 Filed 12/08/15 Page 3 of 3