Easley v. County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 18

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; STAYING PROCEEDINGS; DIRECTING CLERK TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE THE CASE. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/30/10. (Attachments: # 1 certificate of mailing)(mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2010)

Easley v. County of Santa Clara et al

Doc. 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The docket sheet shows that on April 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 9.) On June 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion explaining that docket number 9 was mis-filed in the wrong federal case number. Plaintiff intended to file a new action rather than amend the current complaint. Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. The Clerk shall strike docket number 9 as erroneously filed. On August 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed another amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 16.) The Court views this amended complaint as the operative complaint in this case.
Order Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Staying Proceedings; Directing Clerk to Administratively Close the Case P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.09\Easley874pre.stay.wpd
1

GARY D. EASLEY,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, SANTA ) CLARA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, ) DEPUTY GERHARD WALLACE, ) DIRECTOR OF POLICE DEPARTMENT, ) SANTA CLARA BOARD OF ) SUPERVISORS, and CITY OF SAN JOSE, ) ) Defendants. ) )

No. C 09-5874 LHK (PR) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; STAYING PROCEEDINGS; DIRECTING CLERK TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE THE CASE

Plaintiff, formerly housed at the San Jose Jail and proceeding pro se, filed an amended civil rights complaint1 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that various Santa Clara County officials violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleges that on December 23, 2008, Defendants engaged in the false arrest of Plaintiff, illegally searched his car, and illegally seized a blood sample without consent, resulting in a variety of civil rights violations. Plaintiff seeks

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

money damages. For the reasons stated below, the Court STAYS this action. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). B. Analysis Plaintiff seeks damages for his allegations of false arrest, an illegal search and seizure, and municipal liability. The United States Supreme Court has held that to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff 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. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). The Ninth Circuit has extended Heck beyond the context of convictions to hold that it applies to claims challenging the validity of an arrest, prosecution or conviction, such as those plaintiff presents here. See, e.g., Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 703 (9th Cir. 2006) (Heck barred plaintiff's claims of wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution and conspiracy among police

Order Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Staying Proceedings; Directing Clerk to Administratively Close the Case 2 P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.09\Easley874pre.stay.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

officers to bring false charges). However, in Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007), the United States Supreme Court held that the "Heck rule for deferred accrual is called into play only when there exists `a conviction or sentence that has not been . . . invalidated,' that is to say, an `outstanding criminal judgment.'" Id. at 393 (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87). The Court stated that 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" and rejected it. Id. at 393 (italics in original). Although the Court was only considering when the statute of limitations began running on a false arrest/false imprisonment claim, the discussion quoted above means that Heck does not apply if plaintiff has only been arrested or charged, not convicted, which is the case here. In Wallace the Court said that if a plaintiff files a § 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, and accords with common practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended. Id. If the plaintiff is then convicted, and if the stayed civil suit would impugn that conviction, Heck requires dismissal; otherwise, the case may proceed. Id. Here, it appears that Plaintiff's criminal proceedings are ongoing. Because Plaintiff has not yet been convicted and state proceedings have not concluded, the Court finds that a stay is warranted in this action. This case is STAYED pending resolution of the criminal charges against Plaintiff. If Plaintiff desires to continue with this case after disposition of the criminal charges against him, he must request that the stay be lifted within thirty days of disposition of the criminal charges or within thirty days of the filing date of this order - whichever is earliest unless an appeal is filed. If he appeals, any request to lift the stay must be filed within thirty days of completion of the appellate process. Failure to comply with these deadlines may result in the dismissal of this action. If the stay is lifted, and the Court finds Plaintiff's claims would impugn the validity of his conviction, the action will be dismissed under Heck; if no such finding is made, the action will

Order Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Staying Proceedings; Directing Clerk to Administratively Close the Case 3 P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.09\Easley874pre.stay.wpd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

proceed at that time, absent some other bar to suit. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 394. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the case. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this action is hereby STAYED. The Clerk of the Court shall administratively close the case until further order from the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 8/30/2010 LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge

Order Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Staying Proceedings; Directing Clerk to Administratively Close the Case 4 P:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.09\Easley874pre.stay.wpd