Travis Mock v. City of Santa Ana et al
Filing
49
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS E: EX PARTE LETTER RECEIVED IN CHAMBERS by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court is in receipt of a letter from plaintiff Travis Mock, dated May 10, 2015. The Court construes this ex parte communication as a motion for clarification of the Courts May 5, 2015 order granting in part and denying in part defendants motion for judgement on the pleadings, Dkt. No. 44. Plaintiff appears to construe that order as dismissing [his] lawsuit with prejudice. (pj)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
8:14-cv-00778 CAS (FFMx)
Title
‘O’
TRAVIS MOCK V. CITY OF SANTA ANA
Present: The Honorable
Date
May 14, 2015
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk
Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder
N/A
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present
Not Present
Proceedings:
(In Chambers) ORDER RE: EX PARTE LETTER RECEIVED IN
CHAMBERS
The Court is in receipt of a letter from plaintiff Travis Mock, dated May 10, 2015.
The Court construes this ex parte communication as a motion for clarification of the
Court’s May 5, 2015 order granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion for
judgement on the pleadings, Dkt. No. 44. Plaintiff appears to construe that order as
“dismissing [his] lawsuit with prejudice.”
However, the Court’s May 5 order only dismissed one of plaintiff’s claims, his
claim for unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Under the United
States Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, because plaintiff has pleaded
guilty to multiple felonies and misdemeanors stemming from his arrest, plaintiff may not
pursue a claim for unlawful seizure or false arrest unless he can “prove that [his]
conviction[s] . . . ha[ve] been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into
question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” 512 U.S. 477, 486–87
(1994). That is because this Court could not find that plaintiff was seized without
probable cause without necessarily undermining plaintiff’s convictions. Moreover, the
May 5 order did not state that plaintiff’s unlawful seizure claim was dismissed “with
prejudice.” If plaintiff can show that his convictions have been reversed, expunged, or
otherwise called into question, the Court will entertain a motion to allow plaintiff to
reassert his unlawful seizure claim.
The May 5 order denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the rest of plaintiff’s
claims, finding that plaintiff could still pursue claims based on his allegations that the
police officers unlawfully and unreasonably used excessive, deadly force in effecting
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
8:14-cv-00778 CAS (FFMx)
Date
Title
‘O’
May 14, 2015
TRAVIS MOCK V. CITY OF SANTA ANA
plaintiff’s arrest. Contrary to plaintiff’s apparent understanding, the May 5 order does
not prevent plaintiff from pursuing his claims for unlawful use of force, assault, battery,
negligence, and municipal liability.
Given that plaintiff’s lawsuit has not been dismissed, plaintiff does not need leave
of Court to seek new legal representation. When and if plaintiff obtains new legal
counsel, such counsel is directed to notify the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
:
00
CMJ
Page 2 of 2
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?