# Younger v. Del Toro

> District Court, S.D. California · May 24, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10087658

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** May 24, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10087658

## Opinion text

1
2
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6 HERSCHEL YOUNGER, Case No.: 22-cv-1006-L-MSB

7 Plaintiff,
ORDER:
8 v.
(1) CONDITIONALLY GRANTING
9 CARLOS DEL TORO,
JOINT MOTION TO STAY
10 Defendant. [ECF No. 27]

11
(2) DENYING WITHOUT
12 PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION TO
FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
13
[ECF No. 22]
14
Plaintiff Herschel Younger (“Plaintiff”) filed a request to upgrade his discharge
15
status with the Board of Corrections of Naval Records (“BCNR”) on September 8, 2017.
16
(ECF No. 27, at 2.) Plaintiff based his request on the contention that the PTSD and
17
PTSD-related conditions he suffered during and as a result of his service mitigate the
18
circumstances which led to his “Other Than Honorable” discharge. (Id.) The BCNR
19
denied his request on October 19, 2018. (Id.) After an unsuccessful request for
20
consideration, Plaintiff filed this action on July 11, 2022. (Id.)
21
Separate from the events leading up to this action, Plaintiff filed a request to
22
upgrade his discharge status with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). (Id.) The
23
VA granted this request for purposes of seeking VA benefits on April 5, 2023. (Id.)
24
Following this decision, Plaintiff intends to file a renewed request for consideration. (Id.
25
at 3.) The parties now jointly move to stay the proceedings in this action pending the
26
resolution of the renewed request for reconsideration. (Id. at 5.)
27
28
l “Where a court suspends proceedings in order to give preliminary deference to an
2 independent adjudicating body but further judicial proceedings are contemplated, then
3 jurisdiction should be retained by a stay of proceedings.” N. California Dist. Council of
4 || Hod Carriers, Bldg. & Const. Laborers, AFL-CIO v. Opinski, 673 F.2d 1074, 1076 (9th
5 || Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion to stay for sixty
6 || (60) days from the date this Order is filed. The parties may file a motion to extend the
7 before the stay expires, accompanied by a status report that provides justification for
8 extension.
9 Furthermore, the parties filed a joint motion to file documents under seal. (ECF
10 || No. 22.) The motion was filed in connection with impending dispositive motions. (See
11 at 6.) In light of this Order and in the absence of any pending substantive motions, the
12 || Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the parties’ joint motion to file documents
13 under seal as premature.
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16 Dated: May 24, 2023
1 fee fp
18 H . James Lorenz,
19 United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10087658. Public record. Not legal advice.