1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANE DOE, Case No. 18cv2021-MMA (LL)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 vs. MOTION TO STAY

14 D. LLOYD, [Doc. No. 42] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Jane Doe, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

against Defendant Dustin Lloyd. Plaintiff moves for a temporary stay of 20 the action pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against her. See Doc. No. 42. 21 Defendant has not filed a response in opposition to the motion. The Court took the 22 motion under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. and 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b). See Doc. No. 43. For the reasons set forth below, 24 the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. 25 BACKGROUND 26 This action arises primarily out of Plaintiff’s alleged altercation with Defendant 27 Dustin Lloyd, a Riverside County Sheriff’s Deputy. The relevant factual allegations are 28 set forth in detail in the Court’s December 27, 2018 Order denying Defendant’s motion to 1 dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim against him. See Doc. No. 24. According to 2 Plaintiff, her encounter with Defendant resulted in the filing of misdemeanor charges 3 against her in Riverside County Superior Court. According to Plaintiff, “[t]he 4 misdemeanor case has been prolonged” for various reasons and she anticipates the 5 “criminal charges will be dismissed or ordered to trial proceedings” at a hearing currently 6 set for November 8, 2019. Doc. No. 42 at 1-2. Plaintiff argues that a stay is necessary 7 because she risks potential self-incrimination if deposed prior to the disposition of those 8 proceedings. She also contends that disposition of the criminal proceedings will 9 potentially impact the parties’ ability to settle this case, as well as matters related to trial. 10 LEGAL STANDARD 11 A court’s “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every 12 court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and 13 effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

, 254 14 (1936). The Ninth Circuit has instructed: 15 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 16 competing interests involved in the case.” Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 902. This 17 means the decisionmaker should consider “the extent to which the defendant’s fifth amendment rights are implicated.” Id. In addition, the decisionmaker 18 should generally consider the following factors: (1) the interest of the 19 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 20 which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) 21 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 22 litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal 23 litigation. Id. at 903.

24

25 Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision,

(9th Cir. 1995) (quoting and 26 citing Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro,

(9th Cir. 1989)). 27 // 28 // 1 DISCUSSION 2 As an initial matter, this District’s Civil Local Rules provide “[i]f an opposing 3 || party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.¢.2, that 4 failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by 5 || the court.” SD CivLR 7.1.f.3.c. The Ninth Circuit has held a district court may properly 6 || grant an unopposed motion pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does 7 ||not require, the granting of a motion for failure to respond. See generally, Ghazali v. 8 || Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995). The Court has the option of granting Plaintiff’ □ 9 ||motion based on Defendant’s failure to file a written response. The Court is inclined to 10 || do so but notes that Plaintiffs motion has substantive merit as well. 11 Upon due consideration of the Keating factors set forth above, the Court finds that 12 ||a temporary stay of this action is appropriate pending the disposition of the criminal 13 || proceedings against Plaintiff in state court. Neither Plaintiff, Defendant, nor any 14 interested third parties will suffer prejudice as a result of a temporary stay of the 15 || proceedings in this Court. Moreover, Plaintiff asserts a legitimate concern regarding 16 || potential self-incrimination and the disposition of Plaintiff's criminal charges may 17 || otherwise impact certain claims and issues in this action. 18 CONCLUSION 19 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion and STAYS this 20 || action pending the disposition of the pending criminal charges against Plaintiff in 21 ||Riverside County Superior Court. The Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to timely advise the 22 ||Court in writing via a “Status Report’ of the final disposition of those proceedings, at 23 || which time the Court will lift the stay of these proceedings. 24 IT ISSO ORDERED. 25 || DATE: October 24, 2019 Lh chee Lue □□□ 6 HON. ICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 27 28