Floyd v. Santa Clara County District Attorney
- Beth Freeman
- 5:23-cv-02754
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Floyd v. Santa Clara County District Attorney, Judge Freeman kept the civil-rights case stayed and denied requests to move state criminal proceedings to federal court and set a deadline.
Michael Devin Floyd and the defendants in his stayed federal civil-rights case were affected. The order also left Floyd's ongoing state criminal proceedings in state court and did not set a deadline for resolving them.
What happened
Michael Devin Floyd sued the Santa Clara County District Attorney and others, alleging that they violated his civil rights in connection with an ongoing criminal prosecution. The federal court had stayed his civil case while those criminal proceedings continued.
After the parties reported that the criminal proceedings were still ongoing, the court kept the civil case stayed. Floyd then asked the federal court to move the state criminal proceedings to federal court and set a deadline for resolving them.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied both requests because the federal court lacked jurisdiction to take those actions. The order did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
The detailed version
- Floyd v. Santa Clara County District Attorney · No. 5:23-cv-02754
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 23, 2024
Background
Michael Devin Floyd sued the Santa Clara County District Attorney and others for alleged civil-rights violations connected to an ongoing criminal prosecution. The court had previously stayed the federal case while the criminal proceedings were resolved.
At the court's request, the parties filed status updates on August 21, 2024. They reported that the criminal proceedings against Floyd were still ongoing. The court therefore ordered that the federal case would remain stayed.
Requests and Ruling
Floyd filed a supplemental status update asking the federal court to do two things: move his state criminal proceedings to federal court and set a deadline for resolving those state proceedings. The court denied both requests because it lacked jurisdiction—the legal authority to grant them. The court cited decisions stating that federal district courts have no direct authority over original state criminal proceedings and that a plaintiff cannot move a criminal case to federal court in this manner.
The order addressed the parties' status reports and denied Floyd's requests. It did not rule on the merits of his civil-rights claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.