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 a further stay of this civil rights action due to developments in the plaintiff's pending state criminal proceedings, including competency issues. The court granted the request and extended the stay of proceedings through August 17, 2023.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to extend stay of proceedings granted“Accordingly, the Court ORDERS this action stayed through August 17, 2023.” | 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 pending 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 avoid duplicative or conflicting litigation. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural ruling. It correctly cites the controlling Ninth Circuit authority for the factors to be considered in granting a stay. The court explicitly addresses the potential for prejudice and the relationship between the criminal and civil matters, which are the core concerns in such a motion. The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural 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. 19-cv-2122-MMA (WVG)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER EXTENDING STAY OF 13 vs. PROCEEDINGS 14 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF [Doc. No. 63] 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 has since extended the stay through February 17, 24 2023. See Doc. No. 61. 25 Defendants have filed a Status Report advising the Court that a further stay is 26 warranted due to developments in Plaintiff’s pending criminal proceedings, including 27 issues regarding Plaintiff’s competency. See Doc. No. 63. Upon due consideration of the 28 supporting declaration of defense counsel and the relevant factors set forth in Keating 1 || v. 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 August 17, 2023. 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: February 6, 2023 14 Mitel lu - hipllr 15 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28