Brown v. Phoenix Police Department et al

Filing 42

ORDER: Defendants' Motion to Stay Civil Case Pending Criminal Trial Pursuant to Younger and Heck 35 is denied. Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set for 7/24/2015 is continued until 9/4/2015 at 10:00 AM before Judge Wake. See order for details. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 6/24/2015.(LMR)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Christopher Angelo Brown, Plaintiff, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-14-02126-PHX-NVW Phoenix Police Department, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Civil Case Pending Criminal Trial 16 Pursuant to Younger and Heck (Doc. 35). Plaintiff was arrested by the Phoenix Police 17 Department on March 22, 2014, after allegedly driving drunk, resisting arrest, and 18 assaulting one or more officers. (Doc. 35 at 2.) At the police station, officers drew 19 Plaintiff’s blood without consent in order to measure its alcohol content, notwithstanding 20 Plaintiff’s objection that drawing blood violated his religious beliefs. (Id.) Plaintiff sued 21 Defendants in Maricopa County Superior Court on July 24, 2014, seeking damages under 22 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivation of his Fourth and First Amendment rights. 23 (Doc. 1-1 at 2-3.) Defendants removed the case to this court on September 25, 2014. 24 (Doc. 1.) In an indictment dated October 7, 2014, the state charged Plaintiff with 25 aggravated assault, resisting arrest, aggravated driving, possession or use of marijuana, 26 and possession of drug paraphernalia. (Doc. 35-1 at 6-7.) According to the state court 27 docket, Plaintiff’s criminal trial is currently scheduled for July 13, 2015, although 28 Defendants claim that “a realistic trial date for the State would be in August 2015.” 1 (Doc. 35 at 3.) Defendants now move to stay Plaintiff’s action in this court until his 2 criminal case is resolved. 3 Defendants make their request pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), 4 where the Supreme Court held that federal district courts should abstain from considering 5 requests to enjoin state criminal proceedings unless the state criminal statute is 6 “flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions in every clause, 7 sentence and paragraph” or the prosecution is motivated by “bad faith” or “harassment.” 8 401 U.S. at 53-54. Younger abstention is grounded in a concern that the federal courts 9 endeavor to “vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests,” but only in “ways 10 that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the States.” Id. at 44. 11 “Younger principles apply in an action for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in 12 which the federal plaintiff brings a constitutional challenge to a state proceeding when 13 that proceeding is ongoing; the state proceeding is of a judicial nature, implicating 14 important state interests; and the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating his federal 15 constitutional issues in that proceeding.” Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 984, (9th 16 Cir. 2004). But this is so only when determination of the federal plaintiff’s constitutional 17 claims “would have the same practical effect on the state proceedings as the injunctive 18 relief condemned in Younger.” Id. 19 Here, Defendants do not explain how adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims in this 20 court would interfere with the pending state criminal prosecution. They do not allege that 21 judgment in Plaintiff’s favor would lead to the exclusion of evidence in state court or 22 otherwise prevent the state from vindicating its interest in enforcing its criminal laws. 23 Without greater knowledge of the state proceedings, this court cannot determine that 24 Younger abstention is appropriate. 25 Defendants also cite to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The Supreme 26 Court held in that case that “in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional 27 conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness 28 would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the -2- 1 conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, 2 declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into 3 question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” 512 4 U.S. at 486-87. As Plaintiff has not yet been convicted of any crime, Heck is simply 5 inapplicable. 6 Defendants’ Motion will therefore be denied. Nevertheless, given that Plaintiff’s 7 criminal trial should be resolved within two months at most, the court will continue the 8 Rule 16 scheduling conference, currently set for July 24, 2015, until September 4, 2015. 9 Consistent with the court’s June 4, 2015 Scheduling Order (Doc. 33), the parties must 10 provide initial disclosures at least twenty-one days prior to, and file a discovery plan no 11 more than seven days prior to, the scheduling conference. 12 13 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Civil Case Pending Criminal Trial Pursuant to Younger and Heck (Doc. 35) is denied. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Rule 16 scheduling conference in this case 16 is continued until September 4, 2015, at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 504, Sandra Day 17 O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003. 18 Dated this 24th day of June, 2015. 19 20 Neil V. Wake United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?