govinfo:USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00152-21

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 re: Equitable Estoppel (Doc. 1112), 
on which Plaintiff requests an expedited ruling (Doc. 1167). Also pending are several 
motions related to, or whose resolution hinges upon, the Motion re: Equitable Estoppel . 
(See, e.g., Docs. 954, 956, 958, 967, 976, 1086, 1159, 1169.) 
 Former Plaintiff Louis Taylor 1 was convicted in 1972 of 28 counts of murder 
arising from a fire at the Pioneer Hotel in downtown Tucson, Arizona , and was sentenced 
to life imprisonment. (Doc. 340 -9 at 10-12, 36-37.)2 In 2013, he entered into a plea 
agreement that resolved a pending petition for post -conviction relief and resulted in him 
being released from prison in exchange for pleading no contest to the original 28 coun ts 
of murder. (Doc. 348-10; Doc. 348-11.) After his release, Taylor filed the above-entitled 
civil action, raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) A central issue in this 
 
1 Taylor’s Guardian and Conservator, Nina Alley, has been substituted in place of Taylor 
as the named plaintiff in this action. (Doc. 624.) The Court uses the term “Plaintiff” 
herein to refer interchangeably to Taylor. 
2 All record citations herein refer to the page numbers generated by the Court’s electronic 
filing system. 

 
- 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 
 
litigation has been whether, due to his outstanding 2013 convictions, Plaintiff is barred by 
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), from obtaining incarceration-related damages. 
 Taylor is currently challenging his 2013 convictions in state post -conviction 
proceedings. If the resolution of his state petition for post -conviction relief results in the 
vacatur of his 2013 convictions, there will be no Heck bar in this case. Accordingly, the 
resolution of the state post -conviction proceedings may moot the issues raised in 
Plaintiff’s Motion re: Equitable Estoppel. 
 At a status conference held on April 17, 2024, Defendants stated that they have no 
objection to staying this litigation pending the resolution of Taylor’s state post -conviction 
proceedings. (Doc. 1111.) Plaintiff objected to a stay. (Id.) 
 This Court has inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on its 
docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis 
v. N. Am. Co. , 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Incidental to the power to control its dock et is 
the power to stay proceedings. Id. In determining whether to stay proceedings, the Court 
considers “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). 
 The Court recogni zes the age of this litigation, as well as the hardship on Taylor 
that further delay may cause. However, given that the resolution of Taylor’s pending 
state post-conviction proceedings will impact the scope of this litigation and may moot 
the Heck issues that the parties have litigated for years, the Court finds that staying this 
litigation pending resolution of the state post -conviction proceedings is appropriate, 
notwithstanding Plaintiff’s objection. 
 Accordingly, 
. . . . 
. . . . 

 
- 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 
 
 IT IS ORDERED: 
1. The above -captioned litigation is stayed pending the resolution of Louis 
Taylor’s state post -conviction proceedings challenging his 2013 
convictions. 
2. The trial scheduled for July 8, 2024 , is vacated, pending further Order of 
the Court. 
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Ruling (Doc. 1167) is denied to the extent 
this Order denies the relief requested. 
4. The parties shall notify the Court within seven (7) days of the state court’s 
resolution of Taylor’s Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. The parties shall 
also file status reports every ninety (90) days from the date this Order is 
filed, updating the Court on the status of any settlement discussions and of 
Taylor’s state post-conviction proceedings. 
 Dated this 7th day of June, 2024. 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight