Dawes v. The People of the State of California
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Dawes v. Ausbury (2026-07-31) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
Defendants filed a status report requesting an extension of the existing stay of proceedings due to developments in the plaintiff's related state criminal case, including competency issues. The court granted the request and ordered the action stayed through February 18, 2022.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to extend stay of proceedings granted“Accordingly, the Court ORDERS this action stayed through February 18, 2022.” | agree with court The court applied the factors from Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision to determine that a stay was appropriate, noting that the related criminal proceedings could impact the civil claims and that no party would suffer prejudice. This is a standard exercise of the court's inherent authority to manage its docket and prevent duplicative or conflicting litigation. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural ruling. It correctly identifies the relevant legal standard for staying civil proceedings in favor of related criminal cases and applies the facts (competency issues, potential impact on claims, lack of prejudice) to that standard. The reasoning is sufficient for a stay order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM DAWES, Case No. 19cv2122-MMA-WVG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER EXTENDING STAY OF 13 vs. PROCEEDINGS 14 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF [Doc. No. 49] CALIFORNIA, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff William Dawes, a California inmate proceeding pro se, brings this civil 19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Bravo, Gene, Ugalde, 20 Ausbury, Silva, Shellano, Ayala, Solis, and Zuniga. See Doc. No. 13. The parties 21 previously moved to stay these proceedings for a period of four months pending the 22 outcome of related criminal proceedings in state court. See Doc. No. 44; see also S.D. 23 Sup. Ct. No. SCS287189. The Court granted the motion; this matter is currently stayed. 24 See Doc. No. 46. 25 Defendants have filed a Status Report advising the Court that due to developments 26 in Plaintiff’s pending criminal proceedings, including issues regarding Plaintiff’s 27 competency, a further stay is warranted. See Doc. No. 49. Upon due consideration of the 28 supporting declaration of defense counsel and the relevant factors set forth in Keating v. 1 || Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324-25 (9th Cir. 1995), the Court finds that a 2 || further stay of this action is appropriate. Neither Plaintiff, Defendant, nor any interested 3 || third parties will suffer prejudice because of an extension of the stay of proceedings in 4 ||this Court. As the Court previously noted, proceedings related to Plaintiff's criminal 5 || charges may impact certain claims and issues in this action. 6 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS this action stayed through February 18, 2022. 7 || The Court further ORDERS Defendants to submit a status report no later than five (5) 8 court days prior to the expiration of the stay advising the Court regarding the related 9 || criminal proceedings and indicating whether circumstances warrant a further stay of these 10 proceedings. After consideration of the report, the Court will decide whether to lift the 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || Dated: June 30, 2021 Whthut CTU - / hphlr 14 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 ee