1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL CARLOS GARCIA, No. 2:21-cv-00036-DAD-CSK (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS LIFTING THE

14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., STAY IN THIS CASE 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 21) 16 17 Plaintiff Daniel Carlos Garcia proceeds pro se in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 7, 2024, the previously assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 recommendations recommending that the stay in this case be lifted and that defendants’ motion to 22 dismiss be granted. (Doc. No. 21 at 9–10.) Specifically, the previously assigned magistrate 23 judge found that this federal civil rights action no longer needed to be stayed because “[p]laintiff 24 was again convicted in late 2023.” (Id. at 3.) Those findings and recommendations were served 25 on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen 26 (14) days after service. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff was granted a sixty-one (61) day extension of time to 27 file objections to the findings and recommendations on March 1, 2024. (Doc. No. 25.) Plaintiff 28 timely filed his objections on April 30, 2024. (Doc. No. 27.) 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the 2 court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 3 undersigned will decline to adopt the pending findings and recommendations. 4 This case had previously been stayed on April 26, 2022 in the “interests of judicial 5 economy[]” because plaintiff was awaiting trial on an underlying state criminal charge. (Doc. 6 No. 18.) In his objections, plaintiff contends that this stay should be continued under the Younger 7 abstention doctrine because final judgment in his state criminal case has not yet been entered 8 since he has not been sentenced, he has a pending state habeas corpus action, and he has a 9 pending federal habeas corpus action. (Doc. No. 27 at 3.) 10 “A federal court may abstain under Younger in three categories of cases: ‘(1) parallel, 11 pending state criminal proceedings, (2) state civil proceedings that are akin to criminal 12 prosecutions, and (3) state civil proceedings that implicate a [s]tate’s interest in enforcing the 13 orders and judgments of its courts.’” Herrera v. City of Palmdale, 918 F.3d 1037, 1043–44 (9th 14 Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). “To warrant Younger abstention, a state civil action . . . must also 15 satisfy a three-part inquiry: the state proceeding must be (1) ‘ongoing,” (2) ‘implicate important 16 state interests,’ and (3) provide an ‘adequate opportunity . . . to raise constitutional challenges.’” 17 Id. at 1044 (quoting Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. V. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 18 (1982)). The Ninth Circuit has held that, when Younger abstention is granted on damages claims, 19 a stay is required. Id., at 1043; Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 968–69 (9th Cir. 2004). 20 For the reasons explained below, the undersigned finds that Younger abstention continues 21 to be warranted in this case. This is because there remains an ongoing state court criminal 22 proceeding, since petitioner has not yet been sentenced and no final judgment has been entered.1 23 (Doc. No. 27 at 31–34.) “[C]ourts in the Ninth Circuit have found that application of the 24 Younger abstention doctrine hinges on the pending nature of the state criminal matter — not the 25 procedural stage at which the pending state criminal matter is.” Timberlake v. Santoro, No. 1:20- 26

27 1 The docket in the Riverside County Superior Court indicates that in the related criminal case, plaintiff ’s next appearance is scheduled for November 13, 2024, for an ex parte hearing on 28 “disclosure of potential relationship between judge” as well as sentencing. 1 cv-00013-NONE-SKO, 2021 WL 3771802, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2021) (collecting cases); 2 see also Laine v. Cnty. Of Contra Costa, No. 21-cv-10052-JST, 2022 WL 20275203, at *3 (N.D. 3 Cal. Jan. 5, 2022) (holding that, when plaintiff was convicted but had not yet been sentenced, 4 Younger abstention was appropriate); Embry v. Johnson, No. 1:21-cv-00082-NONE-JLT, 2021 5 WL 2016049, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 20, 2021) (“Petitioner’s state court judgment is not yet 6 final.”) (citing Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 156 (2007) (finding that the imposition of 7 sentence is the final judgment in a criminal case)); cf Torres v. Godwin, No. 18-cv-9469-JVS-KS, 8 2022 WL 2902777, at *7 (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2022) (holding that abstention was not appropriate 9 when petitioner’s direct appeal had already concluded and a final sentence had been imposed, but 10 there was a pending post-conviction petition for resentencing brought under California Penal 11 Code § 1170.95). 12 Moreover, the still pending proceeding in the Riverside County Superior Court implicates 13 an important state interest in that it involves the administration of California’s criminal justice 14 system. See Bowell v. Paramo, No. 17-cv-09313-TJH-MAA, 2018 WL 4735721, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 15 Aug. 6, 2018) (citing Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986)). 16 Because Younger abstention is appropriate and plaintiff seeks damages, the court must 17 maintain the stay on this case. Evans v. Hepworth, 433 F. Supp. 3d 1171, 1179 (D. Idaho 2020) 18 (citing Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 978).2 19 Accordingly, 20 1. The court declines to adopt the pending findings and recommendations issued on 21 February 7, 2024 (Doc. No. 21); 22 2. All pleading, discovery, and motion practice in this action remain STAYED 23 pending entry of a final judgment in plaintiff’s criminal case currently pending in 24 the Riverside County Superior Court; and 25 ///// 26

27 2 The court need not, and at this time does not, express any opinion as to whether continuation of the stay would be appropriate if plaintiff’s state court judgment of conviction becomes final but 28 his state or federal habeas actions attacking that conviction remain pending. 1 3. This action is referred back to the newly assigned magistrate judge for further 2 proceedings. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. * | Dated: November 7, 2024 Dab A. 2, sxe 5 DALE A. DROZD ‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28