Capanis v. Bianucci et al

Filing 6

ORDER LIFTING STAY AND DISMISSING ACTION 5 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/18/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/18/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MATTHEW JOHN CAPANIS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-01457-SI
ORDER LIFTING STAY AND
DISMISSING ACTION

v.
ANTHONY BIANUCCI, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 5

Defendants.

12
13

In March 2015, Matthew John Capanis filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

14

§ 1983, claiming that a Contra Costa County jail policy that “an inmate can only review DVD

15

evidence with an attorney” interfered with his self-representation rights. Docket No. 1 at 3. He

16

was a pretrial detainee at the time he filed this action.

17

Upon initial review, the court stayed this action due to the pendency of the criminal case

18

against Capanis. Docket No. 4. The court explained the rule from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

19

477 (1994), i.e., if success in the § 1983 action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of a

20

conviction, the § 1983 action is barred unless the conviction already been determined to be

21

invalid. Docket No. 4 at 3. The court further explained that, when a pretrial detainee files an

22

action that otherwise would be barred by Heck if he had been convicted, the court can “stay the

23

civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended.” Docket No. 4 at 3

24

(quoting Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 394 (2007)). The court then applied these rules to

25

Capanis’ § 1983 action:

26
27
28

Here, the only cognizable claim is that defendants have interfered with Capanis’
Sixth Amendment right, making him choose between self-representation without
certain evidence or representation by counsel if he wants access to that DVD
evidence. A finding in his favor would necessitate a finding of interference with
his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself. Success on his claim that his

1
2
3
4

Faretta [v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)] right was interfered with necessarily
would invalidate his criminal conviction if one occurs. Capanis’ claim should not
go forward because his criminal proceedings are still pending; rather, “it is within
the power of the district court, and in accord with common practice, to stay the civil
action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended.” See
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. at 393-94. Accordingly, the court will stay further
proceedings in this matter until Capanis’ criminal proceedings have concluded.
Docket No. 4 at 3-4.

5
Capanis has filed a motion to lift the stay. Docket No. 5. He reports that he has been
6
convicted in state court, and now would like to go forward with this action.
7
Capanis is half-right: the stay can be lifted but he cannot go forward with this action.
8
Instead, his conviction requires that this action be dismissed. Wallace v. Kato explained that a
9
stay is appropriate while a criminal case is pending, and also explained what happens at the
10

conclusion of that criminal case: “If the plaintiff is ultimately convicted, and if the stayed civil

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

suit would impugn that conviction, Heck will require dismissal; otherwise, the civil action will
12

proceed, absent some other bar to suit.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. at 394. Here, the Heck rule

13
applies for the reasons stated in the order staying the case. See Docket No. 4. A stay was
14

appropriate while Capanis’ criminal case was pending, but now that a conviction has occurred, the

15
Heck rule requires that this action be dismissed. Capanis must have his conviction overturned
16
(e.g., on direct appeal, or in state or federal habeas proceedings) before he may file a § 1983 action
17
asserting his claim that the defendants interfered with his Sixth Amendment rights.
18
19

For the foregoing reasons, Capanis’ motion to lift the stay is GRANTED. Docket No. 5.
The stay is now lifted. However, the Heck rule bars Capanis’ § 1983 claim because success on the

20
claim would call into question the validity of his state court judgment of conviction, and that
21
conviction has not yet been set aside. The action must be dismissed.

22
If Capanis wants to challenge the lawfulness of his current custody, the exclusive method
23
by which he may do so in federal court is by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
24
See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Such a petition should not be filed until he
25
first exhausts state judicial remedies as to any claim he wishes to present in a federal petition for
26
writ of habeas corpus.
27
28
2

1

For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED. The dismissal is without prejudice

2

to Capanis filing a new § 1983 action for damages if his state court conviction is overturned or set

3

aside. The clerk shall close the file.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 18, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3