United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Dominic W. Lanza United Slates District Judge
This is
a § 1983 action brought by a pro se prisoner.
The first amended complaint alleges, in a nutshell, that
while Plaintiff was in pretrial custody on state criminal
charges, various jail and other law enforcement officials
engaged in misconduct that had the effect of interfering with
Plaintiff's ability to represent himself in his criminal
prosecution. (Doc. 7.) On August 21, 2018, the Court issued a
screening order concluding that, although Plaintiff's
first amended complaint did contain some facially valid
claims, those claims were “intertwined with his right
to self-representation in his criminal case.” (Doc. 8
at 11.) Accordingly, the Court decided to stay this case
under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), pending
the outcome of Plaintiff's criminal case. (Id.
at 12.)
On
December 21, 2018, Defendants filed a notice informing the
Court that Plaintiff had been convicted at trial in October
2018 and had subsequently been sentenced to a term of
imprisonment and filed a notice of appeal with the Arizona
Court of Appeals. (Doc. 30.)
On
January 4, 2019, the Court issued an order to show cause
(“OSC”) requiring Defendants to address (1)
whether the Younger stay should remain in effect
given the conclusion of Plaintiff's state-court trial,
and (2) if not, whether this case should be dismissed under
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because a
favorable outcome here might call into question the validity
of Plaintiff's underlying conviction. (Doc. 36.) The
order further provided that Plaintiff would have 14 days,
following the submission of Defendants' brief, to file a
response. (Id.)
On
January 17, 2019, Defendants filed a response to the OSC.
(Doc. 40.) In it, they argued that the Younger stay
should remain in place pending Plaintiff's state-court
appeal of his conviction because, under Ninth Circuit law,
“exhaustion of state appellate remedies does not occur
until the losing party appeals the adverse rulings.”
(Id. at 2.) Alternatively, Defendants argued that
“if the Court determines that it would be in the best
interest of all parties to lift the stay and resolve this
matter at this time, or if it is determined that the
Younger requirements are no longer met despite the
pending criminal appeal, this Court should review this case
and properly dismiss it [under Heck].”
(Id. at 3.)
On
February 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a document entitled
“Plaintiff's Motion for Latitude Pursuant to Rule 6
of the AZ R. Civil Procedures.” (Doc. 41.) This
document did not address Defendants' arguments concerning
the applicability of Younger and Heck.
On
February 28, 2019, Magistrate Judge Metcalf issued a report
and recommendation (“R&R”) concluding the
Younger stay remain in effect “pending the
resolution of Plaintiff's criminal case originating in
Maricopa County Superior Court, case number CR 2017-005978,
and any direct appeal therefrom, including Arizona Court of
Appeals Division I, case number 1 CA-CR-18-0831, and any
petition for review therefrom to the Arizona Supreme Court or
the expiration of the time for such petition. Provided that
such stay does not preclude matters in furtherance of
completion of service on the defendants, or the resolution of
Plaintiff's pending ‘Motion for Latitude Pursuant
to Rule 6' . . . .” (Doc. 42.) The R&R further
provided “[t]he parties shall have fourteen (14) days
from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation
within which to file specific written objections with the
Court.” (Id. at 6.)
Here,
no such objections have been filed.[1] Thus, the Court accepts the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See, e.g., Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not
appear that Congress intended to require district court
review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions,
under a de novo or any other standard, when neither
party objects to those findings.”); Schmidt v.
Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003)
(“[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge's
report and recommendation unless objections are
filed.”). See also United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1221 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendations de novo if
objection is made, but not otherwise.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R's
recommended disposition (Doc. 42 at 6) is accepted.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Younger stay
will remain in effect pending the resolution of
Plaintiff's criminal case originating in Maricopa County
Superior Court, case number CR 2017-005978, and any direct
appeal therefrom, including Arizona Court of Appeals Division
I, case number 1 CA-CR-18-0831, and any petition for review
therefrom to the Arizona Supreme Court or the expiration of
the time for such petition.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this stay does not preclude
(1) matters in furtherance of completion of service on the
defendants or (2) the resolution of Plaintiff's pending
“Motion for Latitude Pursuant to Rule 6” (Doc.
41).
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) the Clerk of Court must
continue to indicate on the docket that this case is stayed,
(2) Defendants must not answer the First Amended Complaint
until further order of the Court, and (3) within 90 days of
this Order, and on the first business day of every third
month thereafter, Defendants must file with the Court a
“Notice of Status” that informs the Court of the
status of Plaintiff's criminal case and the direct appeal
therefrom, including any petitions for review or petitions
for writs of certiorari.
---------