Daniels v. Aponte
- Robert Illman
- 1:21-cv-03794
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Daniels v. Aponte, Judge Illman granted Daniels’s request for 56 more days to seek lifting of a stay in his civil-rights case.
Jeremy Daniels may file a motion to lift the stay within 56 days. The order does not decide his claims against Steven Aponte or the other defendants.
What happened
Daniels v. Aponte concerns Jeremy Daniels’s civil-rights lawsuit against Steven Aponte and other defendants. Daniels, who was formerly detained and is representing himself, claims that police improperly arrested him and used excessive force.
The court had paused the lawsuit because criminal charges related to the incident were still pending. Daniels told the court that his criminal case had ended and asked for more time to request that the pause be lifted.
Judge Robert M. Illman granted Daniels’s request. Daniels may file a motion to lift the stay within 56 days, and that motion must explain how the criminal case ended, including whether the charges were dropped or he was convicted.
The detailed version
- Daniels v. Aponte · No. 1:21-cv-03794
- Robert Illman
- Mar. 12, 2025
Background
Jeremy Daniels, a former detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that police improperly arrested him and subjected him to excessive force.
The court stayed, or paused, the case under the rule from Wallace v. Kato because criminal charges related to the underlying incident were pending against Daniels. The opinion states that Daniels could not obtain money damages related to the incident until the criminal case ended in his favor or, if he was convicted, until the conviction was reversed.
Request and Ruling
Daniels sent the court a letter stating that his criminal case was over and seeking an extension of time to request that the stay be lifted. The court granted the request. Within 56 days, Daniels may file a motion to lift the stay. The motion must discuss how the criminal case ended and indicate whether the charges were dropped or Daniels was convicted.
The order grants an extension; it does not itself lift the stay or decide the merits of Daniels’s arrest and excessive-force claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.