Younger v. Del Toro
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion to stay proceedings pending a renewed administrative request for discharge upgrade and a joint motion to file documents under seal. The court granted the motion to stay for sixty days and denied the motion to seal without prejudice as premature.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the joint motion to stay proceedings for sixty days“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion to stay for sixty (60) days from the date this Order is filed.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that a stay is appropriate to defer to an administrative body while retaining jurisdiction, citing Ninth Circuit precedent. The 60-day limit with an option to extend is a reasonable procedural mechanism to ensure the case does not remain indefinitely dormant. |
Denying the joint motion to file documents under seal without prejudice“the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the parties’ joint motion to file documents under seal as premature.” | agree with court The court found the motion premature because it was tied to dispositive motions that are not currently pending due to the stay. Denying without prejudice allows the parties to refile when the underlying motions are actually filed, which is a standard and appropriate procedural ruling. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly cites binding Ninth Circuit authority for the use of a stay to defer to administrative proceedings while retaining jurisdiction. The denial of the sealing motion is logically consistent with the stay, as the underlying dispositive motions are not yet active. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for these procedural matters.
Opinion
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 HERSCHEL YOUNGER, Case No.: 22-cv-1006-L-MSB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER: 8 v. (1) CONDITIONALLY GRANTING 9 CARLOS DEL TORO, JOINT MOTION TO STAY 10 Defendant. [ECF No. 27]
11 (2) DENYING WITHOUT 12 PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 13 [ECF No. 22] 14 Plaintiff Herschel Younger (“Plaintiff”) filed a request to upgrade his discharge 15 status with the Board of Corrections of Naval Records (“BCNR”) on September 8, 2017. 16 (ECF No. 27, at 2.) Plaintiff based his request on the contention that the PTSD and 17 PTSD-related conditions he suffered during and as a result of his service mitigate the 18 circumstances which led to his “Other Than Honorable” discharge. (Id.) The BCNR 19 denied his request on October 19, 2018. (Id.) After an unsuccessful request for 20 consideration, Plaintiff filed this action on July 11, 2022. (Id.) 21 Separate from the events leading up to this action, Plaintiff filed a request to 22 upgrade his discharge status with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). (Id.) The 23 VA granted this request for purposes of seeking VA benefits on April 5, 2023. (Id.) 24 Following this decision, Plaintiff intends to file a renewed request for consideration. (Id. 25 at 3.) The parties now jointly move to stay the proceedings in this action pending the 26 resolution of the renewed request for reconsideration. (Id. at 5.) 27 28 l “Where a court suspends proceedings in order to give preliminary deference to an 2 independent adjudicating body but further judicial proceedings are contemplated, then 3 jurisdiction should be retained by a stay of proceedings.” N. California Dist. Council of 4 || Hod Carriers, Bldg. & Const. Laborers, AFL-CIO v. Opinski, 673 F.2d 1074, 1076 (9th 5 || Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion to stay for sixty 6 || (60) days from the date this Order is filed. The parties may file a motion to extend the 7 before the stay expires, accompanied by a status report that provides justification for 8 extension. 9 Furthermore, the parties filed a joint motion to file documents under seal. (ECF 10 || No. 22.) The motion was filed in connection with impending dispositive motions. (See 11 at 6.) In light of this Order and in the absence of any pending substantive motions, the 12 || Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the parties’ joint motion to file documents 13 under seal as premature. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: May 24, 2023 1 fee fp 18 H . James Lorenz, 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28