Foy v. Vallejo Police Department

Filing 52

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 5/22/2013 DENYING, without prejudice, defendants' 26 motion for a stay. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALFRED JAMES FOY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. CIV S-11-3262-MCE-CMK-P

vs.

ORDER

VALLEJO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

15

Defendant.

16

/

17

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ motion to stay these proceedings (Doc.

19

26). Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion (Doc. 30).

20

Plaintiff brings this civil rights action on the basis that the defendants violated his

21

Constitutional rights by using excessive force against him during an arrest. Defendants request

22

this court issue an order staying these proceedings until the underlying criminal proceedings in

23

State court, the result of the arrest at issue in this action, are resolved. Defendants contend a stay

24

is authorized under both Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and Heck v. Humphreys, 512

25

U.S. 477 (1994).

26

///
1

1

Federal courts are required to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a case

2

“under Younger if four requirements are met: (1) a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the

3

proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) the federal plaintiff is not barred from

4

litigating federal constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the federal court action

5

would enjoin the proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with the

6

state proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves.” San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of

7

Commerce Political Action Comm v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008)

8

(citing Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 978 (9th Cir. 2004); AmerisourceBergen Corp. v.

9

Roden, 495 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir 2007)).

10

Defendants argue a Younger stay, not dismissal, is appropriate because plaintiff is

11

seeking monetary damages, not injunctive relief, and all of the Younger elements are met. See

12

Motion to Stay (Doc. 26) at 4 (citing Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance Co., 517 U.S. 706, 721

13

(1996)). Defendants contend the Younger elements are met as the underlying criminal

14

prosecution was initiated prior to this case, the underlying criminal prosecution implicates

15

important State interest, and plaintiff will have an opportunity to raise any probable cause

16

challenge and excessive force challenge in the State proceedings. In addition, they argue that

17

plaintiff may raise his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to discovery questions in this case

18

which could result in increased litigation costs.

19

In addition, defendants contend that even if a Younger stay is not applicable, a

20

Heck stay is appropriate. Where a § 1983 action seeking monetary damages or declaratory relief

21

alleges constitutional violations which would necessarily imply the invalidity of the prisoner’s

22

underlying conviction or sentence, such a claim is not cognizable under § 1983 unless the

23

conviction or sentence has first been invalidated on appeal, by habeas petition, or through some

24

similar proceeding. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-84 (1994) (concluding that §

25

1983 claim not cognizable because allegations were akin to malicious prosecution action which

26

includes as an element a finding that the criminal proceeding was concluded in plaintiff’s favor).
2

1

“In evaluating whether claims are barred by Heck, an important touchstone is

2

whether a § 1983 plaintiff could prevail only by negating ‘an element of the offense of which he

3

has been convicted.’” Cunningham v. Gates, 312 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Heck,

4

512 U.S. at 487 n.6). Where the conviction or arrest and the excessive force claim did not arise

5

from the same acts, the § 1983 case is not barred by Heck. See Smithart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951,

6

952-53 (9th Cir. 1996).

7

Here, plaintiff is challenging the amount of force used by the officers during his

8

arrest. As defendants have informed the court, plaintiff is facing charges for robbery.1 (See

9

Motion (Doc. 26), Exhibit A). There is no indication from the motion or exhibits before the

10

court that plaintiff has been charged with resisting arrest or any similar misconduct arising from

11

the arrest at issue in this action. The question of whether a § 1983 action is barred by Heck is

12

more difficult to answer where the plaintiff is facing charges of resisting arrest or similar conduct

13

arising from the same incident he is claiming excessive force, or if the plaintiff is alleging false

14

arrest or a similar claim. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007). In such a situation,

15

a stay may be appropriate until such time as the underlying criminal proceedings are concluded,

16

at which time the court would be in a better position to evaluate whether the § 1983 action would

17

impugn any conviction resulting therefrom. See id. However, in this case, the facts surrounding

18

plaintiff’s arrest are separate and distinct from the underlying criminal action against him for

19

robbery. If plaintiff was to prevail on his excessive force claim in this case, it would have no

20

bearing on the charges against him for robbery. Therefore, the undersigned does not find any

21

reason to grant a Heck stay.

22
23
24
25
26

1

Defendants have requested the court take judicial notice of the criminal complaint
filed against plaintiff in the Solano County Superior Court. The court may take judicial notice
pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 of matters of public record. See U.S. v. 14.02 Acres of
Land, 530 F.3d 883, 894 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, this court may take judicial notice of state court
records, see Kasey v. Molybdenum Corp. of America, 336 F.2d 560, 563 (9th Cir. 1964), as well
as its own records, see Chandler v. U.S., 378 F.2d 906, 909 (9th Cir. 1967). Thus, defendants’
request should be granted.
3

1

Similarly, a Younger stay is not applicable either. Defendants may be correct in

2

their assessment of the first three elements of the Younger abstention doctrine. However, the

3

fourth element is not addressed in the motion for a stay. This fourth element, whether the federal

4

court action would enjoin the state proceeding is not met. As discussed above, even if plaintiff

5

were to prevail in this action, and it was determined that the defendants acted improperly during

6

the arrest by using excessive force, that would have no impact on the state criminal proceedings

7

against plaintiff on the charges of robbery.

8

Plaintiff is not challenging the legality of his arrest. He does not claim lack of

9

probable cause, or unlawful arrest. He is simply challenging the defendants’ actions during the

10

arrest. Such a challenge will have no impact on the state criminal proceedings. To the extent

11

defendants argue plaintiff may attempt to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights during discovery in

12

this action, that does not appear to be an issue so far, nor does the court see that being an issue as

13

the facts involved in this action are unrelated to the charges plaintiff faces in state court. If,

14

however, that issue does arise, defendants may bring it to the attention of the court at that time

15

for reevaluation.

16
17

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion for a stay (Doc.
26) is denied without prejudice.

18
19
20
21

DATED: May 22, 2013
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
4