Nina Alley v. County of Pima, et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Nina Alley,
Plaintiff,
v.
County of Pima, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-15-00152-TUC-RM
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Trial and Vacate Deadlines.
(Doc. 1242.)1 In the Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to stay this case, and to vacate the
trial date and all pretrial deadlines, pending (1) the Ninth Circuit’s en banc opinion in King
v. Villegas;2 and (2) Louis Taylor’s state-court action under A.R.S. § 13-4296. (Id.)3
Plaintiff argues that both the decision in King and the resolution of his § 13-4296 action
could potentially eliminate the bar to incarceration-based damages in this action that exists
under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). (Id.)
Defendants disagree that either the en banc decision in King or the resolution of
Taylor’s § 13-4296 action is likely to eliminate the Heck bar in this case, but they argue
that the Court need not and should not decide the impact of either event at this juncture,
1 Nina Alley, the Guardian and Conservator of former Plaintiff Louis Taylor, has been
substituted as the named plaintiff in this action. (Doc. 624.) The Court uses the term
“Plaintiff” herein to refer interchangeably to Taylor.
2 The panel decision in King v. Villegas, 156 F.4th 979 (9th Cir. 2025), was vacated on
April 3, 2026, when the Ninth Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc. 171 F.4th 1163
(9th Cir. 2026).
3 Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the stay remain in place until a decision favorable to
him issues in either matter.
Case 4:15-cv-00152-RM Document 1259 Filed 08/19/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and they do not oppose staying this action. (Doc. 1247.) Defendants argue that any stay
should remain in place until the appellate mandate issues in King or until all appeals in
Taylor’s § 13-4296 action are exhausted, whichever occurs later. (Id. at 3.) In reply,
Plaintiff argues that staying this action until all appeals are exhausted in the King and § 13-
4296 matters would convert the stay into an indefinite stay forbidden by Landis v. North
American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936). (Doc. 1249.)
I. Legal Standard
The Court has inherent power to stay proceedings to resolve “the causes on its
docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis,
299 U.S. at 254. The Court “may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and
the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of
independent proceedings which bear upon the case,” even if the related proceedings are
not “necessarily controlling of the action before the court.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of
California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). In determining whether to issue a stay,
the Court must weigh “‘the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or
refusal to grant a stay,’” including “‘the possible damage which may result from the
granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to
go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or
complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from
a stay.’” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting CMAX,
Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)).
II. Discussion
No party argues that a stay will cause damage, hardship, or inequity, and the Court
finds that a stay will further the orderly course of justice, given the potential for the en banc
opinion in King and the resolution of Taylor’s § 13-4296 action to affect the scope of trial
in this matter. Accordingly, and in light of the lack of objection, the Court will grant
Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Trial and Vacate Deadlines, to the extent that the Court will
vacate the trial date and all pending deadlines in this matter, to be reset following issuance
Case 4:15-cv-00152-RM Document 1259 Filed 08/19/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of the Ninth Circuit’s en banc opinion in King and/or the trial court’s resolution of the §
13-4296 action. This decision does not impact the parties’ ability to proceed with the
depositions of Jeanette Mare, Leslie Hoyt-Croft, and Lindsay Herf.
The Court will require the parties to file joint status reports every ninety days.
Furthermore, the parties shall jointly notify the Court within ten days of (1) the issuance of
the Ninth Circuit’s en banc opinion in King, or (2) the trial court’s resolution of Taylor’s
A.R.S. § 13-4296 action, whichever occurs earlier. If, at the time the notice is filed, all
parties agree that the stay should be extended, the parties may make that request in the
notice; otherwise, such a request must be made by motion.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Trial and Vacate Deadlines (Doc.
1242) is granted, to the extent that all pending deadlines in the above-captioned matter,
the Pretrial Conference currently set for September 2, 2026, and the trial currently set for
September 14, 2026, are vacated, to be reset by later Order of the Court. All trial
subpoenas that have been issued are quashed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order does not impact the parties’ ability
to proceed with the depositions of Jeanette Mare, Leslie Hoyt-Croft, and Lindsay Herf.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file status reports every ninety
(90) days from the date this Order is filed. Furthermore, the parties shall notify the Court
within ten (10) days of the issuance of the Ninth Circuit’s en banc opinion in King v.
Villegas or the trial court’s resolution of Louis Taylor’s state-court action under A.R.S. §
13-4296, as set forth above.
Dated this 19th day of August, 2026.
Case 4:15-cv-00152-RM Document 1259 Filed 08/19/26 Page 3 of 3