Shumpert v. D. Madrid et al

Filing 32

ORDER Granting 31 Motion to Stay. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is STAYED pending final judgment in Nevada v. Drayden Shumpert, Nevada Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County Nevada, Case number C-15-304633-1. Either party m ay move to lift the stay once Shumpert's criminal case is resolved. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions 14 , 27 , 28 are DENIED without prejudice to their refiling within 20 days after the stay is lifted. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 1/11/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Drayden D. Shumpert,

5

Plaintiff

2:15-cv-02273-JAD-GWF
6

v.

7

D. Madrid, et al.,

8

Order Staying Case
[ECF Nos. 14, 27, 28, 31]

Defendants

9
10

Pretrial detainee Drayden D. Shumpert asserts a single claim for excessive force against a

11

pair of correctional officers. Defendants move to stay this case until the criminal case pending

12

against Shumpert in state court—which is based on the same altercation as this case—is resolved.1

13

Because Shumpert’s excessive-force claim implicates rulings that are likely to be made in the

14

pending state criminal proceeding, I stay this case until the criminal proceedings are concluded.

15

Discussion

16

Shumpert asserts a single claim for excessive force against Clark County Detention Center

17

(CCDC) correctional officers (COs) D. Madrid and M. Hines. 2 Shumpert alleges that on February 7,

18

2015, COs Hines and Madrid entered his cell, and CO Hines tackled him, stomped on his head, and

19

kicked him in the stomach.3 On February 26, 2015, Shumpert was charged in Nevada state court

20

with two felony counts of battery by a prisoner.4 The state-court records show that the criminal

21

charges arise from the altercation complained of in this case: the state alleges that Shumpert

22
23
24
1

ECF No. 31.

2

ECF No. 1-1.

27

3

Id. at 4.

28

4

ECF No. 31-3.

25
26

Page 1 of 3

1

unlawfully used force against COs Madrid and Hines on February 7, 2015.5 Shumpert filed this

2

civil-rights case almost ten months after the criminal charges against him were filed. Defendants

3

argue that, because any judgment in this case would affect the validity of a potential state-court

4

conviction, this case should be stayed until Shumpert’s criminal case has ended.6

5

The United States Supreme Court held in Heck v. Humphrey that a prisoner cannot bring a

6

civil-rights claim for damages if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the

7

invalidity of his conviction or sentence” due to the officers’ alleged misconduct.7 In other words, “if

8

a criminal conviction arising out of the same facts stands and is fundamentally inconsistent with the

9

unlawful behavior for which § 1983 damages are sought, the §1983 action must be dismissed.”8 The

10

lawfulness of the correctional officers’ and Shumpert’s use of force will likely be determined in

11

Shumpert’s criminal case. Because Shumpert’s criminal battery case may result in Shumpert’s

12

excessive-force claim being barred by Heck, I exercise my discretion to temporarily stay this case

13

until the criminal case has ended.9

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
5

ECF No. 31-1.

6

ECF No. 31.

24

7

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).

25

8

Smithhart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir. 1996).

26

9

22
23

27
28

Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393–94 (2007); see also Peyton v. Burdick, 358 Fed.Appx. 961 (9th
Cir. 2009) (“[B]ecause [plaintiff’s] claims implicate rulings that are likely to be made in the pending
state court criminal proceeding . . . the district court should have stayed the section 1983 action until
the criminal case . . . is ended”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Page 2 of 3

1

Conclusion

2

Accordingly, IT HS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is STAYED pending final judgment

3

in Nevada v. Drayden Shumpert, Nevada Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County Nevada, Case

4

number C-15-304633-1. Either party may move to lift the stay once Shumpert’s criminal case is

5

resolved.

6
7
8
9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions [ECF Nos. 14, 27, 28] are
DENIED without prejudice to their refiling within 20 days after the stay is lifted.
Dated this 11th day of January, 2017.
_________________________________
______________________
_ _ _____ __ _
__
Jennifer A. Dorsey
nifer Dorsey
e
e
United States District Judge
ted States
tate
Judge
ud
dg

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 3