The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MICAH STUBBS, No. 2:26-cv-0253 DC AC PS
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 SUE SAIGN, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 On January 30, 2026, plaintiff filed this action in pro se and paid the filing fee. ECF No.
18 1. Pre-trial proceedings are accordingly referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule
19 302(c)(21). Immediately after filing, plaintiff moved to stay this case, stating that the action was
20 filed in a protective posture to avoid running afoul of the statute of limitations, but that plaintiff
21 does not wish to litigate this case while the underlying family law case remains pending in state
22 court. ECF No. 4 at 1.
23 The court does not grant general extensions of time or indefinitely stay cases that are not
24 ripe for federal action at the outset. The court notes that under the doctrine of Younger
25 Abstention, federal courts cannot hear cases where “state proceedings: (1) are ongoing, (2) are
26 quasi-criminal enforcement actions or involve a state's interest in enforcing the orders and
27 judgments of its courts, (3) implicate an important state interest, and (4) allow litigants to raise
28 federal challenges.” Stockton v. Brown, 152 F.4th 1124, 1136 (9th Cir. 2025); Younger v. Harris,
1 | 401 U.S. 37 (1971). If plaintiff wishes to pursue this case at this time, he must comply with Fed.
2 || R. Civ. P. and complete service of process within the required timeframe. Alternatively,
3 | plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss this case without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
4 41(a)(1)(A)G). The court will not hold the case indefinitely. Accordingly, the motion to stay
5 || (ECF No. 4) is DENIED.
6 || DATED: February 10, 2026 ~
ALLISON CLAIRE
8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28