1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELICEO MERAZ, Case No. 1:21-cv-01146-KES-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION DELAYING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS’ 13 v. HECK BAR MOTION

14 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al., (Doc. 61)

15 Defendants. ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ON JANUARY 27, 2026 16 (Doc. 5) 17 18 Relevant Background 19 Plaintiff Eliceo Meraz (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint in state 20 court against Defendants City of Bakersfield and Bakersfield Police Officers Sandeep Malhi and 21 Kevin Shipton (“Defendants”) on or about June 11, 2021. (Doc. 2, Exhibit 1). Defendants removed 22 the action to this Court on July 29, 2021. (Doc. 2, Notice of Removal). 23 On August 26, 2021, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to stay this action pending the 24 resolution of a state court criminal case against Plaintiff arising from the same November 2020 25 incident at issue in this civil action. (Doc. 8). The Court reasoned that a stay was warranted under 26 the relevant factors applicable in the Ninth Circuit under Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 27 particularly given the overlap between the criminal case and this case and the substantial risk of prejudice that may result to the Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment rights absent a stay. Id. at 4. The 1 Court separately found that a stay was warranted pursuant to the doctrine of Younger abstention. 2 Id. at 5-6. 3 Following a stay of proceedings in this case of close to four years prompted largely by the 4 pendency of Plaintiff’s criminal case, at the parties’ joint request, on June 3, 2025, the Court lifted 5 the stay in this case for the limited purpose of facilitating the parties’ litigation of whether Plaintiff’s 6 claims are barred under Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994) and set a briefing schedule on 7 Defendants’ anticipated motion based on the Heck bar. (Docs. 59, 60). The Court ordered that: (1) 8 Defendants shall subpoena within 30 days of entry of the order Plaintiff’s criminal records and 9 transcripts relating to the case of People v. Meraz, Kern County Superior Case No. BF184064A; 10 (2) within 30 days of the latter of receipts of the state court records or receipt of the criminal 11 transcripts, Defendants shall file a motion based on the Heck bar; (3) Plaintiff shall file any 12 opposition to Defendants’ motion within 21 days of its filing; (4) Defendants shall file any reply 13 within 14 days of the filing of any opposition; and (5) that the motion will be submitted on the 14 papers and without hearing or oral argument. (Doc. 60 at 4). 15 Discussion 16 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated request, filed on December 8, 2025, to 17 lift the stay in full and delay the operative Heck-bar briefing schedule. (Doc. 61). The parties 18 represent that counsel for Defendants received the state court records and transcripts on November 19 11, 2025, making the time for Defendants’ motion based on the Heck bar due on or before 20 December 11, 2025. Id. at 2. The parties represent that in light of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in 21 King v. Villegas,

, No. 23-1713 (9th Cir. 2025), and that counsel for Defendants has 22 been informed that the Attorney General intends to file a Petition for Review en banc in King and 23 that such petition will be filed on or before December 18, 2025, the parties seek to conduct 24 discovery in this case. Id. at 2-3. The parties represent that if King is reversed, Defendants can 25 seek to file their Heck motion at that time, but under King, Defendants do not believe that such a 26 motion is legally viable. Id. at 3. The parties request that the scheduling conference be set prior to 27 which they will file a joint scheduling report and that the parties seek to delay any Heck briefing to 1} 3. 2 In light of the parties’ representations in the stipulated request to lift the stay in this case in 3 | its entirety and that a scheduling conference be set, the Court finds good cause to lift the stay, vacate 4 | the briefing schedule on Defendants’ Heck bar motion and filing requirements thereto (Doc. 60 at 5 | 4), and set a scheduling conference as set forth below. 6 Conclusion and Order 7 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The stay in this case (Docs. 12, 60) is LIFTED in full; 9 2. The briefing schedule on Defendants’ motion based on the Heck bar and filing 10 requirements thereto (Doc. 60 at 4) are VACATED; and 11 3. A scheduling conference is set for January 27, 2026, at 9:30 AM in Bakersfield 12 (CDB) before the undersigned. The parties are directed to file a joint scheduling report 13 one (1) full week prior to the scheduling conference and e-mailed, in Word format, to 14 cdborders @caed.uscourts.gov. See (Doc. 5) (Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling 15 Conference). 16 | IT IS SO ORDERED. M Dated: _ December 9, 2025 | Ww Vv R~ 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28