Cilek v. Hobart Police Department et al

Filing 73

OPINION AND ORDER: DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 63 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendants Adrian Bustos, Zachary Crawford, Corey C Hannahan, Ryan Snedecor; STAYS all further proceedings in this case pending the resolution of the state criminal pro ceedings (including any appeal) in case 45G03-1406-FA-00020; ORDERS Mr. Cilek to file a status report with the Court within 30 days of the conclusion of his State court proceedings (including the state appellate process) in case 45G03-1406-FA-00020; and GRANTS Defendants leave to re-file their motion within 60 days after Mr. Cilek has filed his status report; and DENIES 66 MOTION to Quash 63 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Anthony Wayne Cilek. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Martin on 7/5/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
ANTHONY WAYNE CILEK,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOBART POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No. 2:15-CV-151 JEM

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 63].
Anthony Wayne Cilek, a pro se prisoner, filed a lawsuit alleging that Defendants violated his rights
by conducting warrantless (or otherwise improper) searches and using excessive force during the
course of his arrest in criminal case 45G03-1406-FA-00020. Defendants argue that there is no
genuine issue of material fact as to any of these claims, and they are entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. However, the Court cannot rule on the merits of this motion at this time because this case
implicates the Younger abstention doctrine. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
“Younger exemplifies one class of cases in which federal-court abstention is required: When
there is a parallel, pending state criminal proceeding, federal courts must refrain from enjoining the
state prosecution.” Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584, 588 (2013). See also Gakuba
v. O’Brien, 711 F.3d 751, 753 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[F]ederal courts must abstain from taking
jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims that may interfere with ongoing state proceedings.
[Plaintiff’s] claims of damages resulting from illegal searches, seizures, and detentions meet that
description: they involve constitutional issues that may be litigated during the course of his criminal
case. Deciding those issues in federal court could undermine the state court proceeding.” (citations
omitted); Olsson v. O'Malley, 352 F. App’x 92, 94 (7th Cir. 2009) (implementing Younger

abstention where “state criminal proceedings against [plaintiff] are ongoing [and plaintiff] may
litigate the issues raised in his complaint on direct appeal or state collateral review”); Simpson v.
Rowan, 73 F.3d 134, 138 (7th Cir. 1995) (“Because an appeal of [plaintiff’s] conviction and death
penalty sentence is currently pending before the Illinois Supreme Court, the potential for federalstate friction is obvious. The district court avoided that friction by abstaining from deciding [his]
claims until the Illinois Supreme Court has had a full opportunity to review the circumstances
surrounding [his] conviction”).
The resolution of Defendants’ motion would require this court to rule on procedural issues
contested in the underlying ongoing State court criminal proceedings. Mr. Cilek’s lawsuit challenges
the validity of the search of his home. Defendants argue that this issue is barred by the doctrine of
res judicata because the criminal court ruled on the matter during a suppression hearing. However,
the period for Mr. Cilek to appeal his state court proceeding has not yet closed. Therefore, this issue
is not yet finalized in the State courts, and this Court must abstain from deciding the issue until it
has been finalized. See Simpson, 73 F.3d at 138 (“The policy against federal interference with
pending state proceedings would [] be frustrated as much by a damages award as it would by either
an injunction or a declaratory judgment. Younger abstention is therefore appropriate while the case
works its way through the state appellate process”). Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will
be denied without prejudice, with leave to re-file upon the completion of Mr. Cilek’s State court
proceedings (including any appeal).
One final matter remains before this Court. Mr. Cilek has filed a motion to quash
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. [DE 66]. While Mr. Cilek lists case law in opposition
to Defendants’ motion, he does not identify any legal basis to quash the motion itself. Moreover,

2

Defendants were entitled to file their motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and this
Court’s order of October 27, 2016. [DE 58].
For these reasons, the Court: (1) DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment [DE 63]; (2) STAYS all further proceedings in this case pending the
resolution of the state criminal proceedings (including any appeal) in case 45G03-1406-FA-00020;
(3) ORDERS Mr. Cilek to file a status report with the Court within 30 days of the conclusion of his
State court proceedings (including the state appellate process) in case 45G03-1406-FA-00020; and
(4) GRANTS Defendants leave to re-file their motion within 60 days after Mr. Cilek has filed his
status report; and (5) DENIES Mr. Cilek’s motion to quash [DE 66].
SO ORDERED this 5th day of July, 2017.
s/ John E. Martin
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:

All counsel of record
Plaintiff, pro se

3