Alexander v. Lafayette et al
Filing
48
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 47 Motion for Reconsideration re 11 Memorandum Order, Case Stayed. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Michael Hill on 07/09/2015. (crt,Williams, L)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALBERT K. ALEXANDER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11-1749
VERSUS
SECTION “P”
CITY POLICE OF LAFAYETTE, ET AL.
JUDGE DOHERTY
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HILL
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the court is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by pro se plaintiff, Albert K.
Alexander, on July 6, 2015 in connection with his civil rights action filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. [rec. doc. 47]. By this Motion, plaintiff requests that this Court reconsider
its prior Order in which, pursuant to Wallace v. Kato, 594 U.S. 384, 393-394, 127 S.Ct.
1091 (2007), this action was stayed until the criminal proceedings against plaintiff are
completed and accordingly prohibiting plaintiff from filing any more documents in this
action until the stay has been lifted. [See rec. doc. 11].
Plaintiff advises that the State has issued a trial subpoena apparently setting the
outstanding remaining criminal charges against petitioner (possession of stolen things - 7
counts, simple battery - 2 counts and telephone harassing) for trial on November 30,
2015. Plaintiff states that he has prepared a total of forty documents with attached
exhibits (twenty-two "declarations", eleven "judicial demands", four amended complaints
and two "supplemental declarations" and one Motion) which he seeks to file prior to his
trial on grounds that he fears these documents may be "stolen or destroyed by some
unknown malicious act of the . . . Lafayette City Police."1
By this action, plaintiff complains that he has been the victim of a false arrest,
unconstitutional search and seizure, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment.
Accordingly, he seeks monetary damages based on alleged violations of his
Constitutional rights stemming from his arrest and detention following his arrest, as well
as the search and seizure of property from his residence. This Court stayed this action
because, while criminal charges remain pending against plaintiff, it is premature to
determine whether a plaintiff's civil damages claims may be barred under Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994) and therefore subject to dismissal.2 The
Court's prior ruling remains unchanged.
Moreover, plaintiff has already filed a Complaint and an Amended Complaint,
thus, leave of Court would be required for the filing of additional Amendments, this Court
1
Plaintiff further advises that he has recently been diagnosed with paranoia.
2
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.
Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393-394.
2
does not authorize the freestanding filing of "declarations", "supplemental declarations"
or "judicial demands" and plaintiff has already filed four unsuccessful Motions.
Accordingly, there is no reason for this Court to accept these additional filings at
this time.
For these reasons, plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [rec. doc. 47] is denied.
Signed this 9th day of July, 2015, at Lafayette, Louisiana.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?