Pierce v. City of Palo Alto, 15-cv-06117-PSG. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160510a04
Visitors: 9
Filed: May 09, 2016
Latest Update: May 09, 2016
Summary: ORDER STAYING CASE (Re: Docket No. 19) PAUL S. GREWAL , Magistrate Judge . In this action, Plaintiff Timothy Pierce alleges that Defendant Dan Ryan, an agent working for the Palo Alto Police Department, suppressed and tampered with evidence in connection with Pierce's DUI arrest and prosecution. 1 Last week, the parties appeared for a case management conference, where they informed the court that Pierce's criminal DUI case is set for trial in the next few months. 2 Citing the substantial
Summary: ORDER STAYING CASE (Re: Docket No. 19) PAUL S. GREWAL , Magistrate Judge . In this action, Plaintiff Timothy Pierce alleges that Defendant Dan Ryan, an agent working for the Palo Alto Police Department, suppressed and tampered with evidence in connection with Pierce's DUI arrest and prosecution. 1 Last week, the parties appeared for a case management conference, where they informed the court that Pierce's criminal DUI case is set for trial in the next few months. 2 Citing the substantial ..
More
ORDER STAYING CASE (Re: Docket No. 19)
PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge.
In this action, Plaintiff Timothy Pierce alleges that Defendant Dan Ryan, an agent working for the Palo Alto Police Department, suppressed and tampered with evidence in connection with Pierce's DUI arrest and prosecution.1 Last week, the parties appeared for a case management conference, where they informed the court that Pierce's criminal DUI case is set for trial in the next few months.2
Citing the substantial overlap of issues—the alleged manipulation of evidence clearly is relevant to the state court case—Pierce requests that the court stay this case pending resolution of the criminal action. In light of these practical concerns, as well as the "strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances,"3 the case is STAYED. The parties shall notify the court within 14 days of final resolution of the state criminal action.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. See Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 4, 10-12.
2. See Docket No. 19.
3. Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 475 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)).
Source: Leagle
