McCoy v. Anderson

Filing 4

ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 08/13/10. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff, an inmate presently incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, California, has filed a pro se Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Richmond Police Officer Matthew Anderson unlawfully detained Plaintiff and falsified a police report, thereby violating Plaintiff's constitutional rights. Plaintiff seeks damages. Doc. #1. v. MATTHEW ANDERSON, Defendant. / DANNY MCCOY, Plaintiff, ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE No. C-10-2137 TEH (PR) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pleadings filed by pro se Balistreri v.

litigants, however, must be liberally construed.

Pacifica Police Dep't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

II To recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or prison sentence, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a plaintiff in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action must prove that the conviction or sentence has 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. U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Heck v. Humphrey, 512

A claim for damages bearing that

relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 487.

The rationale of Heck applies only if there is an existing conviction, however. Wallace v Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393­94 (2007). 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The contention that "an action which would impugn an anticipated future conviction cannot be brought until that conviction occurs and is set aside" goes "well beyond Heck." original). Id. at 393 (emphasis in

Nonetheless, if a plaintiff files a 42 U.S.C. § 1983

claim "related to rulings that likely will be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial[], it is within the power, and accords with common practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended." Id. at 393­94.

A review of the court docket shows that criminal proceedings against Plaintiff are pending in this Court. See United

States of America v. McCoy, No. 09-cr-00337-CW (N.D. Cal. filed April 1, 2009). Accordingly, a stay of these proceedings under the If Plaintiff is later

rationale of Wallace is in order here.

convicted, and if the stayed civil suit would impugn that conviction, Heck will require dismissal; otherwise, the case may proceed. // // // // // // // // // // // 3 Wallace, 549 U.S. at 394.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED IT IS SO ORDERED. 08/13/10

III Good cause appearing, the instant proceedings are STAYED and the case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. Nothing further will take

place in this matter until the criminal proceedings against Plaintiff come to an end, and, within thirty (30) days thereafter, Plaintiff moves to reopen the case, lift the Court's stay and amend the stayed Complaint.

THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.10\McCoy-10-2137-stay-ac-wallace v. kato.wpd

4