Gibbs v. California Department of Fish and Game et al
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/1/2018 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 86 the amended Findings and Recommendations are NOT ADOPTED 43 the parties shall file supplemental briefing not to exceed 10 pages within 14 days. (Reader, L)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ROBERT ALAN GIBBS,
BOYD, et al.,
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. The matter was
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of California local
On December 18, 2015, Brian Boyd and DeWayne Little (“Defendants”) officers
with the Department of Fish and Wildlife (“DFW”) filed a motion for summary judgement. ECF
No. 43 at 7. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. On September 9, 2016, the magistrate judge filed
findings and recommendations. ECF No. 67 at 9. On September 30, 2016 this court declined to
adopt the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 73 at 2. The court was concerned there may
be “a triable issue over the validity of plaintiff’s arrest warrant and the reasonableness of
plaintiff’s arrest.” ECF No. 73 at 4. On December 4, 2017 the magistrate judge filed amended
findings and recommendations recommending that the court grant defendants’ motion for
summary judgment in full. ECF No. 86. Plaintiff filed timely objections. ECF No. 88. On
December 20, 2017, defendants filed a response to plaintiff’s objections. ECF No. 92.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule
304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. After a review of the file, it is
unclear to the court whether plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is cognizable given the pending state court
actions outlined in the Declaration of Brian Boyd in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment.
ECF No. 44 at 4-6 (“Based on the violations that I found . . . . Shasta County is prosecuting these
criminal misdemeanor charges against Plaintiff in a pending State Court action entitled People v.
Gibbs, Case Number MCRDCR-M-13-0004757-002.”). The Supreme Court held in Heck v.
Humphrey, that “in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction
or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been
reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid . . . or called into
question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994)
(citation omitted). Neither party has adequately addressed this issue in their briefings, and more
information is required for the court to render a decision on defendants’ pending motion for
The parties are DIRECTED to file supplemental briefing that addresses at a
minimum (1) whether a state criminal case arose from the search and arrest challenged in this
matter, (2) the status of that state case, (3) the outcome of that case, if it has been adjudicated, and
(4) the applicability of Heck v. Humphrey to plaintiff’s § 1983 claim in light of any state case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
The amended findings and recommendations filed Dec. 4, 2017 are not adopted.
The parties shall file supplemental briefing not to exceed ten (10) pages within
fourteen (14) days.
DATED: October 1, 2018.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?