Christ v. City of Missoula Police Department et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying 21 Motion to Stay, and setting September 4, 2012 deadline for Plaintiff's responses to motions to dismiss. Signed by Jeremiah C. Lynch on 9/4/2012. (TCL, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
_____________________________________________
JASON CHRIST,

CV 12-106-M-DLC-JCL
Plaintiff,
ORDER

vs.
CITY OF MISSOULA POLICE
DEPARTMENT, COLIN ROSE,
STACY LEAR, MISSOULA COUNTY
ATTORNEYS OFFICE, ANDREW PAUL,
PAUL VAN VALKENBERG,
MISSOULA COUNTY 911, and
OFFICERS JOHN DOES 1 - 12,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________
Plaintiff Jason Christ, proceeding pro se, moves to stay this action. In
support of his motion Christ states he is busy defending himself, pro se, against
criminal charges pending against him in the Montana Fourth Judicial District
Court set for trial in October, 2012. Therefore, Christ contends he does not have
sufficient time to prepare for and prosecute this civil action while, at the same
time, defending himself in the criminal matter. He asserts all of the litigation
activity “works [an] extreme personal and logistical hardship” on him. Defendants
have all filed briefs opposing Christ’s motion for a stay.

1

The gravamen of this action alleges that Defendants are unlawfully and
inappropriately prosecuting criminal charges against him — the same prosecution
which Christ now asserts is consuming his time and preventing him from devoting
necessary attention to this civil action. In his pleading Christ identifies numerous
issues of alleged misconduct, mistreatment, and harassment committed by various
city and county law enforcement officers and prosecuting officers relative to the
pending criminal prosecution against him. In this action Christ challenges matters
such as the basis and factual support for the criminal charges, the existence of
probable cause for the charges, and the propriety of the decision to prosecute the
charges against him. He also complains about the criminal prosecutors’ conduct
in the case, and he challenges the court’s rulings and its course of proceedings in
the matter. For his relief, Christ requests, inter alia, injunctive relief baring further
criminal prosecution of the charges against him.
In view of the ongoing criminal proceedings against Christ on which his
complaint in this civil action is predicated, it appears this action may be barred
under the abstention doctrine espoused in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
Younger directs that federal courts must not interfere with, or intervene in ongoing
criminal proceedings in state court and, therefore, must abstain from exercising
jurisdiction over a civil action which challenges those proceedings. Younger, 401
U.S. at 43-45. See also San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political
2

Action Committee v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2008); and Dubinka
v. Judges of Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, 23 F.3d 218, 222-26 (9th Cir. 1994) (concluding the federal court must
abstain from entertaining legal challenges to proceedings in criminal prosecutions
pending in state court).
On July 17, 2012, Defendants Missoula County Attorney’s Office, Andrew
Paul, Fred Van Valkenburg, and Missoula County 911 moved to dismiss this
action, in part, under the Younger abstention doctrine. Thus, because a dismissal
under the doctrine is mandatory in those situations where it is applicable, and
because Defendants oppose Christ’s requested stay of this action, the Court must
proceed to address the merits of the issue of whether this action is barred under
Younger.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Christ’s Motion for Stay of
Proceedings is DENIED.
Defendants Missoula County Attorney’s Office, Andrew Paul, Fred Van
Valkenburg, and Missoula County 911 filed both their Motion to Decline
Jurisdiction under Younger, and their Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim on July 21, 2012. Christ’s response to those motions was due on or before
August 7, 2012, but he did not file any response brief to either motion. In view of

3

his pro se status, the Court will afford Christ an additional amount of time within
which to file his response briefs. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Christ shall file
a brief in response to each of the referenced motions on or before September 14,
2012.
DATED this 4th day of September, 2012.

Jeremiah C. Lynch
United States Magistrate Judge

4