Burgos v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County

Filing 10

ORDER LIFTING STAY AND DISMISSING ACTION re 9 Letter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 6/5/17. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRANCISCO BURGOS,

Case No. 16-cv-03908-DMR (PR)

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiff,

ORDER LIFTING STAY AND
DISMISSING ACTION

12
v.
13
14
15
16

SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA
COUNTY,
Defendant.
In July 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant pro se civil rights complaint for damages under 42

17

U.S.C. § 1983, in which he sought monetary damages for the alleged violation of his constitutional

18

right to a speedy trial. Dkt. 1 at 3. Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Dkt. 4.

19

Therefore, this matter was assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge.

20

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

21

against Plaintiff. Dkt. 6. The court explained the rule from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477

22

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

23

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

24

invalid. Dkt. 6 at 2-3. The court further explained as follows:

25
26
27
28

If a plaintiff files a section 1983 false arrest claim before he or she is
convicted, or files any other claim related to rulings that likely will
be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial, it is within the
power of the district court, and accords with common practice, to
stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a
criminal case is ended.

1

Id. (quoting Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007)). The court then applied these rules to

2

Plaintiff’s section 1983 action, stating: “Here, Plaintiff seeks damages for the violation of his

3

constitutional right to a speedy trial, but Plaintiff has not alleged that he has been convicted.

4

Accordingly, the court will stay further proceedings in this matter until Plaintiff’s criminal

5

proceedings have concluded.” Id. at 3.

6

Plaintiff has since filed a letter to the court, which will be construed as his motion to lift

7

the stay. Dkt. 9. Plaintiff reports that he has been convicted in state court, and now would like to

8

go forward with this action. See id. at 1.

9

However, while the stay can be lifted, the court explains below that Plaintiff cannot go
forward with this action. Instead, his conviction requires that this action be dismissed. Wallace v.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Kato explained that a stay is appropriate while a criminal case is pending, and also explained what

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

Heck rule applies for the reasons stated in the order staying the case. See Dkt. 6 at 2-3. A stay

16

was appropriate while Plaintiff’s criminal case was pending, but now that a conviction has

17

occurred, the Heck rule requires that this action be dismissed. Plaintiff must have his conviction

18

overturned (e.g., on direct appeal, or in state or federal habeas proceedings) before he may file a

19

section 1983 action asserting a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

20

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay is GRANTED. Dkt. 9. The

21

stay is now lifted. However, the Heck rule bars Plaintiff’s section 1983 claim because success on

22

the claim would call into question the validity of his state court judgment of conviction, and that

23

conviction has not yet been set aside. Therefore, the action must be dismissed.

24

If Plaintiff wants to challenge the lawfulness of his current custody, the exclusive method

25

by which he may do so in federal court is by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

26

See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Such a petition should not be filed until he

27

first exhausts state judicial remedies as to any claim he wishes to present in a federal petition for

28

writ of habeas corpus.
2

1

For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED.1 The dismissal is without prejudice

2

to Plaintiff filing a new section 1983 action for damages if his state court conviction is overturned

3

or set aside.

4

The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.

5

This Order terminates Docket No. 9.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: June 5, 2017
______________________________________
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate 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
1

26
27
28

As mentioned above, Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. The undersigned
Magistrate Judge, then, has jurisdiction to dismiss this action, even though Defendants have not
been served or consented to magistrate jurisdiction. Cf. Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th
Cir. 1995) (holding that magistrate judge had jurisdiction to dismiss prison inmate’s action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous without consent of defendants because defendants had not been
served yet and therefore were not parties).
3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

FRANCISCO BURGOS,

Case No. 4:16-cv-03908-DMR

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7
8
9
10

SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA
COUNTY,
Defendant.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on June 5, 2017, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18

Francisco Burgos
DWB539
701 S. Abel Street
Milpitas, CA 95035

19
20

Dated: June 5, 2017

21
22

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

23
24
25
26
27

By:________________________
Ivy Lerma Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable DONNA M. RYU

28
4