Filed: Sep. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 21, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, VACATING DISMISSAL AND STAYING ACTION; SETTING COMPLIANCE HEARING RE: STATUS OF STAY Dkt. No. 56 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . The Court, having carefully considered the motion (Dkt. No. 56) of plaintiff Khlood Khalih Salah for reconsideration of its July 2, 2018 Order Dismissing Action Without Prejudice Sua Sponte (Dkt. No. 48), and the opposition thereto, and for the reasons stated herein, ORDERS that the motion is GRANT
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, VACATING DISMISSAL AND STAYING ACTION; SETTING COMPLIANCE HEARING RE: STATUS OF STAY Dkt. No. 56 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . The Court, having carefully considered the motion (Dkt. No. 56) of plaintiff Khlood Khalih Salah for reconsideration of its July 2, 2018 Order Dismissing Action Without Prejudice Sua Sponte (Dkt. No. 48), and the opposition thereto, and for the reasons stated herein, ORDERS that the motion is GRANTE..
More
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, VACATING DISMISSAL AND STAYING ACTION; SETTING COMPLIANCE HEARING RE: STATUS OF STAY
Dkt. No. 56
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
The Court, having carefully considered the motion (Dkt. No. 56) of plaintiff Khlood Khalih Salah for reconsideration of its July 2, 2018 Order Dismissing Action Without Prejudice Sua Sponte (Dkt. No. 48), and the opposition thereto, and for the reasons stated herein, ORDERS that the motion is GRANTED IN PART.1
For the reasons stated in the Court's July 2, 2018 Order, under the principles stated in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 49-53 (1971), abstention is proper here. The Court agrees that, because two of plaintiff's federal claims are claims for damages subject to a two-year statute of limitations, a stay of the action pending resolution of the state court proceedings, rather than dismissal without prejudice, is appropriate. See Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 981 (9th Cir. 2004) ("when damages are sought and Younger principles apply, it makes sense for the federal court to refrain from exercising jurisdiction temporarily by staying its hand until such time as the state court is no longer pending").
Plaintiff establishes no basis for an exception to abstention here, either for bad faith prosecution, "imminent danger," or "irreparable harm." Plaintiff offers no evidence to support the alleged bad faith of the County employees. It does not appear that any decision on the civil rights claims herein would impact plaintiff's ability to obtain the return of the child taken from her custody. While plaintiff's first amended complaint seeks injunctive relief to prevent defendants from taking any further action to terminate her custody rights to her son, including any action to adopt her son (First Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 28, ¶ 164), plaintiff also alleges that her rights have been terminated already (id. ¶ 156).
Based upon the foregoing, the dismissal of the action pursuant to this Court's Order of July 2, 2018 is VACATED. The Court AMENDS its prior order of July 2, 2018, to provide that the action herein is STAYED pending the final disposition of the state court proceedings.2
Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to REOPEN the case and designate the same as STAYED.
The Court SETS a compliance hearing regarding the status of the state court proceedings and continued stay for December 14, 2018, at 9:01 a.m., U.S. District Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland. Five business days prior, the parties shall file a joint statement regarding the status of the state proceedings and the propriety of continuing the stay. If a statement is timely filed, the compliance hearing will be vacated, and no appearance will be required. Should the state proceedings terminate sooner, the parties may submit a joint stipulation to terminate the stay.
This terminates Docket No. 56.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
