Robertson v. Napa State Hospital

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 6 — 7 JOSHUA ROBERTSON, Case No. 24-cv-08692-JST 8 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING DEADLINES, 9 v. STAYING AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE 10 NAPA STATE HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants. — 11 — — 12 — 13 Plaintiff, a civil detainee, has filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 14 Napa State Hospital (“NSH”) and NSH staff. For the reasons set forth below, the Court STAYS 15 the case pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Plaintiff’s appeal. 16 DISCUSSION 17 Plaintiff commenced this action by filing the complaint docketed at ECF No. 1. In the 18 complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Napa State Hospital and certain NSH staff failed to protect 19 Plaintiff from fellow patient Kyle Martin and failed to address Plaintiff’s medical needs when they 20 refused to change Plaintiff’s roommate, whose actions were triggering Plaintiff’s PTSD startle21 response. The complaint alleged that these actions and omissions violated the Fourteenth 22 Amendment’s requirement that civil detainees be housed in safe conditions. See generally ECF 23 No. 1. Plaintiff also requested a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to revoke patient 24 Kyle Martin’s ‘Mall’ and cafeteria privileges. ECF No. 2. On December 19, 2024, the Court 25 dismissed the complaint with leave to amend in a reasoned order. The Court found that the 26 complaint’s allegation that Defendants’ actions and omissions put Plaintiff at substantial risk of 27 serious harm from patient Martin was contradicted by the complaint’s factual allegations. Because 1 concerning Martin, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend this claim. The Court dismissed the 2 claim regarding the refusal to change Plaintiff’s roommate because it violated the joinder 3 requirement set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). He Court declined to exercise supplemental 4 jurisdiction over the state-law claims as the federal constitutional claim had been dismissed. ECF 5 No. 12. The Court instructed Plaintiff that if he wished to amend his Fourteenth Amendment 6 claim regarding patient Martin, he should file an amended complaint by January 16, 2025. Id. In 7 that same order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. Id. Plaintiff has 8 not filed an amended complaint, and the deadline to do so has passed. There is currently no 9 operative complaint in this action. 10 On March 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal with the Ninth Circuit, appealing 11 the Court’s December 19, 2024 denial of his request for a preliminary injunction. ECF No. 18. 12 On March 11, 2025, the Ninth Circuit opened a case pursuant to Plaintiff’s appeal, 9th Cir. C No. 13 25-1561, and set a briefing schedule. 9th Cir. C No. 25-1561, ECF Nos. 1, 2. On April 1, 2025, 14 Plaintiff filed an amended notice of appeal, challenging the dismissal of the complaint with leave 15 to amend. 9th Cir. C No. 25-1561, ECF No. 3. 16 Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal concerns the merits of this case and therefore divests this 17 court of jurisdiction over the case while the appeal is pending. Griggs v. Provident Consumer 18 Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (district court and court of appeals should not assert 19 simultaneous jurisdiction over same matter) (“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of 20 jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district 21 court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”). In light of the pending 22 interlocutory appeal, the Court exercises its discretion to stay this case pending resolution of the 23 appeal. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (whether to stay action pending appeal is 24 matter of court’s discretion); see also City of Oakland v. Holder, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1005 , 1015 25 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (staying action pending appeal because important legal questions were pending 26 before Ninth Circuit, and public interest lay in “ensuring” that action was “litigated consistently 27 and in the most efficient manner possible”). 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the forgoing reasons, the Court, in its discretion, STAYS the case pending the Ninth 3 Circuit’s decision in Plaintiff's appeal. Plaintiff shall inform the Court within fourteen days of the 4 || Ninth Circuit’s issuance of a mandate in Plaintiff's appeal. The Court VACATES the briefing 5 schedule, and directs the Clerk to terminate all pending motions as moot and to administratively 6 || close the file. The administrative closure of this case is purely an administrative procedure that 7 does not affect the rights of the parties. If the Ninth Circuit returns this action to this Court, the 8 || Court will set a new deadline for the amended complaint. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: October 6, 2025 . JON S. TIG 12 United States District Judge — 15 — — 16 — = 17 Z 18 — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —