Hicks v. Page et al

Filing 52

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 40 Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion is granted to the extent that David Hicks' false arrest claims, both his federal claim and his state law claim, against all of the defendants are dismissed with prejudice. The motion is further granted as to Hicks' section 1983 excessive force claim against the City of Shreveport, which is dismissed with prejudice. The motion is denied with regard to Hicks' section 1983 excessive force claim a gainst Roy Hall, M A Bianco and C W Yarborough. The motion is further denied with respect to Hicks' state law tort claims against all of the defendants. It is ordered that the remaining claims are STAYED, until Hicks' related state criminal proceedings are resolved. Any party may move the court to reopen the case and lift the stay upon a showing that the Heck issues have been resolved. Signed by Judge Tom Stagg on 9/8/2011. (crt,Keifer, K)

RECEiVED
SEP ~ 8 2011
,
\

,.

IW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

'f~NY R MO:e~ti{LE~~_.,
S.- -

SHREVEPORT DIVISION

oHJTY

DAVID L. HICKS
CIVIL CASE NUMBER 10-0084
JUDGE TOM STAGG

versus
JOHNA PAGE, ET AL.

ORDER
Based on the foregoing Memorandum Ruling;
IT IS ORDERED that the defendants' motion for summary judgment (Record
I

Document 40) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The motion is GRANTED to the extent that David Hicks's ("Hicks") false
arrest claims, both his federal claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and his state law
claim, against all of the defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

The

motion is further GRANTED as to Hicks's section 1983 excessive force claim
against the City of Shreveport, which is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The motion is DENIED with regard to Hicks's section 1983 excessive force
claim against Roy Hall, M. A. Bianco, and C. W. Yarborough. The motion is further
DENIED with respect to Hicks's state law tort claims against all of the defendants.
IT IS ORDERED that the remaining claims are STAYED, pursuant to Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994) and Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S.

384, 127 S. Ct. 1091 (2007), until Hicks's related state criminal proceedings are
resolved. The Clerk is directed to close the case for administrative purposes. Any
party may move the court to reopen the case and lift the stay upon a showing that the
Heck issues have been resolved.

.

rfJeeIsr

THUS DONE AND SIGNED at Shreveport, Louisiana, this -----"- day of
September 2011.