Osotonu v. American Canyon Police Department

Filing 29

ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE THE CASE by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 25 Motion to Stay. (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LOTU T. OSOTONU,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-02437-PJH

v.
DANIEL P. LICHAU,
Defendant.

ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE THE
CASE
Re: Dkt. No. 25

12
13
14

Plaintiff, a detainee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The court ordered service and defendant has filed an answer.

15

DISCUSSION

16

Plaintiff alleges that defendant police officer Lichau used excessive force during an

17

arrest. Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief. Plaintiff is currently in custody

18

awaiting trial on the criminal charges from the underlying incident in this case.

19

In order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

20

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a

21

conviction or sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction

22

or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared

23

invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question

24

by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

25

477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or

26

sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487.

27
28

In Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007), the Court held that the “Heck rule for
deferred accrual is called into play only when there exists ‘a conviction or sentence that

1

has not been . . . invalidated,’ that is to say, an ‘outstanding criminal judgment.’” Id. at

2

391-93 (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87). The Heck rule delays accrual only if there is

3

an existing conviction on the date the statute of limitations begins to run, which in the

4

case of wrongful arrest or wrongful imprisonment claims is when the plaintiff's

5

confinement is no longer without legal process, but rather becomes a confinement

6

pursuant to legal process – that is, for example, when he or she is bound over by a

7

magistrate or arraigned on charges. Id. at 389-90. The Court stated that the contention

8

that “an action which would impugn an anticipated future conviction cannot be brought

9

until that conviction occurs and is set aside” goes “well beyond Heck” and rejected it. Id.
at 393 (italics in original). Although the Court was only considering when the statute of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

limitations began running on a false arrest/false imprisonment claim, the discussion

12

quoted suggests that Heck does not apply if there is no extant conviction – for instance, if

13

plaintiff has only been arrested or charged.

14

If a plaintiff files a § 1983 false arrest claim before he or she is convicted, or files

15

any other claim related to rulings that likely will be made in a pending or anticipated

16

criminal trial, it is within the power of the district court, and accords with common practice,

17

to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended.

18

Id. at 393-94. If the plaintiff is then convicted, and if the stayed civil suit would impugn

19

that conviction, Heck requires dismissal; otherwise, the case may proceed. Id. at 394.

20

The parties have filed a joint stipulation to stay this case pending the outcome of

21

plaintiff’s criminal case. A review of the filings in this case demonstrates that a stay is

22

appropriate.

23

CONCLUSION

24

1. Defendant Quigley is DIMSISSED with prejudice from this action because

25

plaintiff declined to file a second amended complaint with allegations against this

26

individual.

27
28

2. The joint motion to stay (Docket No. 25) is GRANTED and this action is
STAYED. Within twenty-eight (28) days of the date on which plaintiff is acquitted,
2

1

convicted, or charges ar dismissed plaintiff o defendan may file a motion to lift the
re
d,
or
nt
o

2

sta If plaintiff is convic
ay.
cted and if the claim wo
ould impug that conv
gn
viction, the action will

3

be dismissed; otherwise, his claim may then p
proceed. In light of the stay, plain should
n
e
ntiff

4

not file any more documents in this action untiil the state c
court proce
eedings hav
ve

5

concluded. The clerk sh ADMINISTRATIVE
T
hall
ELY CLOSE the case.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: June 14, 2018
1

8
9
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge

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

1

UNITED STATES D
D
DISTRICT C
COURT

2

NORTHER DISTRIC OF CALI
RN
CT
IFORNIA

3
4

LO
OTU T. OSO
OTONU,

Case No. 1
17-cv-02437
7-PJH

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFIC
CATE OF S
SERVICE

6
7

DANIEL P. LICHAU,
D
L
.
Defendant.

8
9
10

I, the un
ndersigned, hereby certify that I am an employe in the Offi of the Clerk, U.S.
ee
ice
strict Court, Northern Di
istrict of Cal
lifornia.
Dis

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on June 14, 20 I SERV
n
018,
VED a true an correct co
nd
opy(ies) of t attached, by placing
the
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelo addressed to the pers
i
ope
d
son(s) herein
nafter listed, by
dep
positing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by pla
d
n
M
acing said co
opy(ies) into an inter-off delivery
o
ffice
y
rec
ceptacle loca in the Cl
ated
lerk's office.
.

16
17
18

Lot T. Osoton
tu
nu
#19
99300469
112 3rd Street
25
Na CA 9455
apa,
59

19
20
21

Da
ated: June 14 2018
4,

22
23

usan Y. Soon
ng
Su
Cl
lerk, United States Distr Court
d
rict

24
25
26

By
y:_________
___________
_______
K
Kelly Collins, Deputy Cle to the
,
erk
H
Honorable PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N

27
28
4