Mackie v. County of Santa Cruz

Background

Plaintiffs filed this civil action in 2019 based on incidents that allegedly occurred in 2018. The complaint alleges that Ralph Millar gained unauthorized access to Jennifer Mackie’s home, harassed her, and ultimately shot her on August 15, 2018. Plaintiffs further allege that local law enforcement and emergency responders failed to adequately prevent the shooting despite repeated contact with them about Millar’s access and conduct.

On March 31, 2020, the court granted the parties’ joint request to stay the civil case while Millar’s criminal trial proceeded. After Millar accepted a plea and began serving his sentence, plaintiffs moved to reopen the case, lift the stay, and schedule a case-management conference. The County opposed the motion, arguing that the stay should remain until resolution of Millar’s appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

Legal standard

The court explained that the Constitution does not require a civil case to be stayed while a related criminal proceeding is pending. A court may nevertheless impose or continue a stay in the interests of justice. The court applied the five factors identified in Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision: the plaintiffs’ interest in proceeding and any prejudice from delay; the burden on defendants; the court’s convenience and efficient use of judicial resources; the interests of nonparties; and the public interest.

The court also considered whether lifting the stay would substantially prejudice Millar’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The court noted that a person does not have an absolute right to avoid choosing between testifying in a civil matter and asserting the privilege.

Analysis

The court found that the final three Keating factors favored lifting the stay. It stated that there appeared to be no third parties with interests in maintaining the stay and that the public interest favored resolving the case quickly because it involved alleged serious failures by the County concerning public trust and safety.

The court rejected the County’s argument that the possibility of Millar’s civil-case statements being used in a possible criminal retrial justified continuing the stay. The County provided no evidence of substantial prejudice. The court noted that Millar could decline to answer particular questions at a deposition or civil trial, that use of his civil statements in a retrial depended on several events that were not guaranteed to occur, and that lifting the stay would not necessarily lead to his deposition or testimony soon. The court also stated that the parties could work with the court on a schedule protecting Millar’s constitutional rights.

The court emphasized that stays of undefined duration are disfavored and that nearly six years had passed since the shooting. It concluded that plaintiffs’ interest in continuing the case outweighed the interests supporting continuation of the stay.

Disposition

The court granted plaintiffs’ motion to reopen the case, lift the stay, and set a case-management conference. The order terminated Docket No. 96. The ruling addressed the stay and case-management issues; it did not decide the merits of plaintiffs’ underlying claims.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court ruled on whether the civil case should proceed while related criminal matters remained pending, without deciding the merits of the underlying claims.