Reardon v. City of Chico et al

Filing 33

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 1/3/18 DENYING Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 28 without prejudice to renewal once Plaintiff's appeal is resolved. All pending dates in this case are hereby VACATED, and this case is STAYED until Plaintiff's conviction is final. Not later than sixty days following the date this order is electronically filed, and every sixty days thereafter until the stay is lifted, the parties are directed to file a joint status report advising the Court regarding the status of Plaintiff's criminal proceedings. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SEAN PATRICK REARDON,

12
13
14

No. 2:15-CV-02410-MCE-CMK

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CITY OF CHICO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

By way of this action, Plaintiff Sean Patrick Reardon (“Plaintiff”) seeks to recover
from Defendants for injuries sustained when City of Chico police officers purportedly
utilized excessive force during the course of Plaintiff’s arrest. Defendants have now
moved for summary judgment arguing, among other things, that Plaintiff’s federal
excessive force claim is barred under the doctrine set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994), because Plaintiff sustained a felony conviction for resisting an
executive officer in violation of California Penal Code section 69 based on the same
incident underlying his current Complaint.1 Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s Heck
argument on the merits and argues in response only that he has appealed from his
convictions and that a reversal would negate Defendants’ contention.
1

28

Plaintiff was also convicted of a misdemeanor hit and run under California Vehicle Code section

2002(a).

1

1

Given the lack of finality of Plaintiff’s convictions and the desire to avoid

2

piecemeal and/or unnecessary adjudication of the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court

3

hereby DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) without

4

prejudice to renewal once Plaintiff’s appeal is resolved. All pending dates in this case

5

are hereby VACATED, and this case is STAYED until Plaintiff’s conviction is final. Not

6

later than sixty days following the date this order is electronically filed, and every sixty

7

days thereafter until the stay is lifted, the parties are directed to file a joint status report

8

advising the Court regarding the status of Plaintiff’s criminal proceedings.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 3, 2018

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2