Pellerin et al v. Neustrom et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM RULING - For the following reasons, this action is STAYED in its entirety until the criminal proceeding against Carl Pellerin are complete, subject to the following conditions: a. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date the state court cri minal proceedings have concluded, plaintiffs must file a motion asking this Court to lift the stay. The action will proceed at that time, absent some other bar to suit. b. If the criminal proceedings are not concluded within six (6) months of the dat e that this case is stayed, on June 30, 2012, plaintiffs shall file a status report indicating the expected completion date of the proceedings. Additional status reports shall be filed every six (6) months thereafter until the stay is lifted. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Michael Hill on 12/22/11. (crt,Guidry, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHARLENE PELLERIN, ET AL.

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11-0776

VERSUS

*

JUDGE MELANCON

MICHAEL J. NEUSTROM, ET AL.

*

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HILL

MEMORANDUM RULING
Pending before the Court is a civil rights action filed by plaintiffs, Charlene and
Carl Pellerin, on May 23, 2011 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In their Complaint,
plaintiffs allege that the defendants, Sheriff Michael J. Neustrom, and Deputies Carla,
Nathan Perry and John Sims, have unconstitutionally arrested Carl Pellerin, with the use
of excessive force, and unconstitutionally seized a gun from their residence, in
connection with Carl Pellerin being charged with three counts of aggravated assault with
a dangerous weapon, to wit, the seized gun, charges which remain pending in the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court. The Court heard oral argument on the defendant’s
motion to dismiss on December 21, 2011.
For the following reasons, this action is STAYED in its entirety until the criminal
proceedings against Carl Pellerin are completed, subject to the following conditions:
a. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date the state court criminal
proceedings have concluded, plaintiffs must file a motion asking this Court
to lift the stay. The action will proceed at that time, absent some other bar
to suit. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007).
b. If the criminal proceedings are not concluded within six (6) months of the
date that this case is stayed, on June 20, 2012, plaintiffs shall file a status
report indicating the expected completion date of the proceeding.

Additional status reports shall be filed every six (6) months thereafter until
the stay is lifted.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
In their original Complaint, plaintiffs allege that their civil rights were violated
when the defendant Deputies falsely arrested Carl Pellerin and employed excessive force
during the arrest by over-tightening handcuffs which had been placed on Carl Pellerin.
[rec. doc. 1, ¶ 37, 65]. Plaintiffs further allege that the defendant Deputies unlawfully
entered the Pellerin home without a search warrant and without permission, and
unlawfully searched and seized a pistol from the residence. [Id. at ¶ 52, 32, 42, 48]. As a
result, Carl Pellerin has been charged with three counts of aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon. [See rec. doc. 6-4].
It was admitted at oral argument, and is therefore undisputed, that these charges
remain pending before the Fifteenth Judicial District Court for Lafayette Parish, and that
the gun which was seized from plaintiffs’ residence is being held as evidence in
connection with the pending criminal prosecution. [See rec. doc. 6 and 6-4]. Plaintiffs
assert claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Louisiana state law for false arrest, use of
excessive force, and illegal search and seizure in violation of plaintiffs’ Second, Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief. [rec.
doc. 1, ¶ 85-90].
LAW AND ANALYSIS

2

In light of the above, by this action, plaintiffs contest Carl Pellerin’s arrest, as well
as the search and seizure of a gun from their residence. Further, it is clear that plaintiffs
seek monetary damages based on alleged violations of their Constitutional rights
stemming from the arrest, and search and seizure of the gun. It is undisputed that charges
remain pending against Carl Pellerin in the Fifteenth Judicial District Court for Lafayette
Parish for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
If Carl Pellerin is ultimately convicted of the pending aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon charges, plaintiffs may not be entitled to seek damages for his arrest on
that charge, his detention associated with that charge, or the search and seizure of the gun,
to the extent that the gun is used as evidence in the criminal proceeding, until such time as
the conviction in question has been declared invalid. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994).
The Fifth Circuit has explained the Heck analysis as follows:
When a plaintiff alleges tort claims against his arresting officers, the district
court must first consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. If so, the
claim is barred unless the plaintiff demonstrates 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 a determination,
or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
DeLeon v. City of Corpus Christi, 488 F.3d 649, 652 (5 th Cir. 2007).
Because Carl Pellerin’s criminal prosecution remains pending, Heck does not
apply at this time. See Wallace v. Kato, 594 U.S. 384, 393-394, 127 S.Ct. 1091 (2007).
3

However, federal courts are authorized to stay civil rights claims attacking the legality of
a plaintiff’s arrest, prosecution, and detention until such time as the allegedly improper
state prosecution has been concluded. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393-394.
Indeed, during oral argument on the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, plaintiffs’
counsel acknowledged that it would be proper for this court to stay this case pending
resolution of the criminal charges against Carl Pellerin. The Wallace court stated as
follows:
If a plaintiff files a false-arrest claim before he has been convicted (or files
any other claim related to rulings that will likely be made in a pending or
anticipated criminal trial), it is within the power of the district court, and in
accord with common practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal case
or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended. See id., at 487-488, n. 8, 114
S.Ct. 2364 (noting that “abstention may be an appropriate response to the
parallel state-court proceedings”); Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517
U.S. 706, 730, 116 S.Ct. 1712, 135 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996). If the plaintiff is
ultimately convicted, and if the stayed civil suit would impugn that
conviction, Heck will require dismissal; otherwise, the civil action will
proceed, absent some other bar to suit. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641,
649, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997); Heck, 512 U.S., at 487, 114
S.Ct. 2364.
In accordance with that authorization, district courts within the Fifth Circuit, as
well as this court, have routinely stayed civil rights actions when criminal charges remain
pending. Quinn v. Guerrero, 2010 WL 412901, *2 (E.D. Tex. 2010); Fox v. Campbell,
2009 WL 10786809 (E.D. Tex. 2009); Holt v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office, 2007 WL
4114357, 5 (E.D. La. 2007); Profit v. Ouachita Parish, 2010 WL 1643800, 3:09-cv-1838,
docs. 25 and 37 (W.D. La. 2010); Anderson v. Madison Parish Sheriff’s Dept., 3:09-cv4

0223, doc. 17 (W.D. La. 2010); Caldwell v. Lambert, 2010 WL 3036488, 3:10-cv-0526,
docs. 7 and 9 (W.D. La. 2010); Brown v. Hill, 2010 WL 1734721, 3:09-2170, docs. 10
and 11 (W.D. La. 2010); Hughes v. Gueydan Police Dept., 6:10-1570, doc. 49 (W.D. La.
2010); Alexander v. City Police of Lafayette, 6:11-1749, doc. 11 (W.D. La. 2011).
Although Carl Pellerin’s criminal prosecution can move forward toward
conviction regardless of the pending civil rights action, the question faced by this Court is
whether plaintiffs’ damage claims asserted in this action may move forward before the
criminal proceeding has been concluded. In this case, they may not.1
As in the present case, when it is premature to determine whether a plaintiffs' civil
damages claims may be barred under Heck, courts should stay the proceedings. Quin,
2010 WL 412901 at *2 citing Mackey v. Dickson, 47 F.3d 744, 746 (5 th Cir. 1995) (in
such cases, the court “may- indeed should-stay proceedings in the section 1983 case until
the pending criminal case has run its course, as until that time it may be difficult to
determine the relation, if any, between the two.”), Busick v. City of Madison Mississippi,
90 Fed. Appx. 713, 713-714 (5 th Cir. 2004) (where it is impossible to determine whether a
plaintiff's civil claims relating to his arrest and criminal prosecution necessarily implicate
the validity of any conviction or sentence that plaintiff has received or might receive

1

The undersigned acknowledges that plaintiffs’ excessive force claim could proceed at this time,
as any judgment by this Court would most probably not necessarily imply the invalidity of Carl Pellerin’s
conviction. See Bush v. Strain, 513 F.3d 492, 498 (5th Cir. 2008) citing Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391
(5th Cir. 2006) and cases cited in fn. 13. However, judicial efficiency and avoidance of piecemeal
litigation concerns counsel against such action.

5

because of ongoing criminal proceedings, the district court should have stayed the civil
proceedings pending the resolution of the criminal charges against plaintiff); Davis v.
Zain, 79 F.3d 18, 19 (5 th Cir. 1996) (“if some presently unforeseen or unarticulated
conflict arises between the criminal retrial and the pending § 1983 case, the district court
may consider the propriety of a stay or, perhaps, abstention”). A stay is therefore
appropriately entered in this case.
For the above reasons, this action is stayed in its entirety until the criminal
proceedings against Carl Pellerin are completed, subject to the following conditions:
a. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date the state court criminal
proceedings have concluded, the parties shall file a joint motion asking this
Court to lift the stay. The action will proceed at that time, absent some
other bar to suit. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007).
b. If the criminal proceedings are not concluded within six (6) months, on
June 20, 2012, the parties shall file a status report indicating the expected
completion date of the proceeding. Additional status reports shall be filed
every six (6) months thereafter until the stay is lifted.
Signed this 22 nd day of December, 2011, at Lafayette, Louisiana.

6