Strobl v. Farrow et al

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 1/26/15 ORDERING that the parties are directed to meet and confer within 15 days after the date this Order is electronically filed. The parties are further directed to file a joint statement w ith the Court not later than 15 days after they meet and confer. Defendants' pending Motions to Dismiss, ECF Nos. 16 and 18 , are DENIED without prejudice to being renewed in whole or in part after the implications of Plaintiff's criminal convictions have been addressed. Any obligation on Defendants' part to answer the currently operative First Amended Complaint is stayed pending further notice from the Court. (Kastilahn, A) Modified on 1/27/2015 (Kastilahn, A).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NICHOLAS STROBL, an individual,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

No. 2:13-cv-01436-MCE-EFB

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

JOSEPH A. FARROW, in his official
capacity as the Commissioner of the
California Highway Patrol; DENNIS
PONTIUS, individually and in his
official capacity as an officer of the
California Highway Patrol; MATTHEW
STOVER, individually and in his official
capacity as a Sergeant of the California
Highway Patrol; ROBERTO GOMEZ,
individually and in his official capacity
as an officer of the California Highway
Patrol; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
individually and in their capacities as
law enforcement officers and/or
personnel for the California Highway
Patrol,
Defendants.

24
25

Through the present action, Plaintiff Nicholas Strobl seeks damages against

26

three different California Highway Patrol different officers as a result of excessive force

27

allegedly employed by the officers following a fight that occurred at the R15 Bar in

28

Sacramento on May 19, 2012. California Highway Patrol Commissioner Joseph A.
1

1

Farrow is also named as a Defendant. Plaintiff asserts causes of action premised on

2

violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, along with violations of the

3

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as various

4

pendent state claims. On May 5, 2014, Defendant Farrow filed a Motion to Dismiss

5

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on grounds it fails to state a claim against Farrow on

6

which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 1 (ECF

7

No. 16). The remaining Defendants filed their own Motion to Dismiss ten days later, on

8

May 15, 2014 (ECF No. 18).

9

Both Motions request, as an alternative to dismissal, that Plaintiff’s action herein

10

be stayed pending the resolution of misdemeanor criminal charges pending against

11

Plaintiff as a result of the incident underlying this case. According to Defendants, those

12

charges include alleged violations of California Penal Code sections 242 (Battery) and

13

243(b) (Battery against police officer). See People of the State of California v. Nicholas

14

Von Strobl (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 12M06946, filed October 22,

15

2012. 2 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s conviction in those proceedings could affect his

16

ability to maintain the present matter either under the so-called Heck rule or pursuant to

17

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme

18

Court refused to permit a litigant to proceed with civil charges if those charges are

19

inconsistent with a litigant’s prior criminal conviction, unless that conviction was

20

subsequently reversed. Additionally, under Rooker-Feldman, a federal district court

21

lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from the final judgment of a state

22

court, so if the civil charges are tantamount to such an appeal they could be improper on

23

that ground as well. See, e.g., Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003).

24

Consequently, according to Defendants, under either Heck or Rooker-Feldman, if

25

///

26
27

1

All further references to “Rule” or “Rules are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless
otherwise noted.
2

28

An online docket sheet for the criminal proceedings is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of
Stephen C. Pass filed in support of Defendant Farrow’s Motion.

2

1

Plaintiff is convicted of battery, or of battery against a police officer, that conviction could

2

preclude the claims Plaintiff is making through this lawsuit.

3

Significantly, the Court’s own review of the Sacramento Superior Court’s current

4

online docket sheet indicates that Plaintiff did in fact go to trial on June 23, 2014, on the

5

pending misdemeanor charges. Following what appears to be a three-day jury trial,

6

Plaintiff was found guilty on June 27, 2014, of both the battery and battery against a

7

police officer charges, as well as on an additional count for violating California Penal

8

Code 148(a)(1) (resisting arrest).

9

Both the criminal charges against Plaintiff and the civil lawsuit he has filed in this

10

Court appear to arise from the same underlying facts. Plaintiff’s convictions may well

11

impugn his ability to maintain all or part of this lawsuit depending on the circumstances

12

of that conviction. Consequently, the Court must first decide to what extent Plaintiff’s

13

civil claims remain viable after those convictions before determining any of the other

14

issues raised by Defendants in their motions.

15

To that end, the parties are directed to meet and confer within fifteen (15) days

16

after the date this Order is electronically filed. The parties are further directed to file a

17

joint statement with the Court not later than fifteen (15) days after they meet and confer.

18

That statement should advise the Court of the particulars surrounding resolution of

19

Plaintiff’s criminal charges, as well as Plaintiff’s intentions concerning his continued

20

prosecution of the present action, and whether or not he intends to appeal his

21

misdemeanor convictions, so that the Court can determine how the instant matter should

22

proceed forward. In the meantime, since in the Court’s view Plaintiff’s criminal

23

convictions will, in all likelihood, significantly affect his ability to maintain the present civil

24

case at this time, Defendants’ pending Motions to Dismiss, ECF Nos. 16 and 18, are

25

DENIED without prejudice to being renewed in whole or in part after the implications of

26

Plaintiff’s criminal convictions have been addressed.

27

///

28

///
3

1

Finally, any obligation on Defendants’ part to answer the currently operative First

2

Amended Complaint is stayed pending further notice from the Court.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 26, 2015

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4