Cheek et al v. Garrett et al

Filing 102

MEMORANDUM DECISION denying without prejudice 63 Motion to Dismiss ; denying 65 Motion to Stay; denying without prejudice 79 Motion for Summary Judgment ; granting 85 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 08/31/2011. (tls)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

HAYLEE CHEEK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

vs.

SCOTT GARRETT, et al.,

Case No. 2:10-CV-508 TS

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on (1) Plaintiffs Haylee Cheek and Shane Clark’s (“Cheek
and Clark”) Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint;1 (2) the remaining Iron County Defendants,
Iron County Attorney Scott Garrett, Deputy County Attorney Jody Edwards, Sheriff Mark
Gower, and law enforcement officers Melissa Fritz-Fuller, Dennis Wade Lee, and Skeen’s
(collectively “Iron County Defendants”) Motion to Stay Claims of Plaintiff Travis Braun
(“Braun”);2 (3) the Iron County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Claims of Haylee Cheek and
Michael Shane Clark;3 and (4) the Cedar City Police Department, Robert D. Allinson, David
McIntyre, Christopher Garrison, Matt Topham, Kevin Norrin, David Evans, and Justin Zufelt’s
1

Docket No. 85.

2

Docket No. 65.

3

Docket No. 63.
1

(collectively “Cedar City Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment on the Claims of
Plaintiffs Cheek and Clark.4
For the reasons discussed more fully below, the Court will grant Cheek and Clark’s
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and deny the Iron County Defendants’ and Cedar City
Defendants’ motions.
I. BACKGROUND
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs name thirty-one separate Defendants and allege numerous
civil rights violations for actions allegedly taken by state, county, and city officials.
Plaintiffs allege that they are victims of persecution from a conspiracy orchestrated by
Iron County Attorney, Scott Garrett. Plaintiffs assert that Scott Garrett formed the conspiracy to
retaliate, harass, intimidate, and threaten Plaintiffs, for refusing to accept plea bargains and
defending against the states’ allegations. As a result of the conspiracy, Plaintiffs allege to have
suffered deprivations of their rights.
Cheek and Clark allege to have suffered constitutional deprivations as a result of actions
taken by the remaining Iron County Defendants and Cedar City Defendants on or about April 8th
and 9th of 2010. The parties dispute whether the offending actions were the result of the
investigation of violations that led to convictions against Cheek and Clark.
Plaintiff Braun alleges that he first suffered deprivations of his rights as a result of a
traffic stop on November 20, 2008. According to Braun, during the stop he suffered an epileptic
seizure and was subsequently tased twice by officer C. Garrison and restrained by several other

4

Docket No. 79.
2

Cedar City officers, causing him serious injury. Braun was arrested and booked into the Iron
County Jail on several charges, including assault on a police officer.
Braun also alleges that he was falsely accused of an alleged gun sale in February of 2010.
According to Braun, the remaining Iron County Task Force used flash bang grenades to blow in
Braun's windows and doors, destroying the house and leaving it open to burglars.
II. DISCUSSION
A.

MOTION TO STAY
The Iron County Defendants argue that Braun’s claims should be stayed during the

pendency of state charges. The Iron County Defendants further argue that if Braun is convicted
of the state charges, his § 1983 claims should be dismissed. Braun contends that “[c]ivil and
criminal actions are two entirely separate and distinct legal systems not tied together, nor does it
matter if the person is charged, convicted or incarcerated.”5
The Supreme Court in Heck v. Humphrey,6 held:
[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would
render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove 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 determination,
or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeus corpus.7
“‘But if the district court determines that the plaintiff's action, even if successful, will not
demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action

5

Docket No. 68, at 1.

6

512 U.S. 477 (1994).

7

Id. at 486-87.
3

should be allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other bar to the suit.”8 The Tenth Circuit
has extended the application of Heck to include § 1983 claims relating to pending charges where
a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of any conviction or
sentence that might result from prosecution of the pending charges.9 The Tenth Circuit
instructed that “[s]uch claims arise at the time the charges are dismissed.”10
In the instant case, the parties do not dispute that there are state charges pending against
Braun relating to the facts that give rise to his § 1983 claims. As the Iron County Defendants
properly assert, under Heck, Braun’s claims should be stayed and dismissed to the extent that “a
judgment in favor of [Braun] would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or
sentence.”11 “[D]epending on their substance, Heck may apply to [Braun’s] claims, making them
premature.”12 For such claims, Braun’s argument that civil and criminal actions are two entirely
separate and distinct legal systems is unavailing.
However, the Court will not apply “a blanket application of Heck to all of [Braun’s]
claims” because “Heck applies only to those claims that would necessarily imply the invalidity
of any conviction that might have resulted from prosecution” of the alleged claims.13 For
example, in “a civil suit for an unreasonable seizure predicated on the use of excessive force . . .

8

Beck v. City of Muskogee Police Dept., 195 F.3d 553, 556-57 (10th Cir. 1999) (emphasis
in original) (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 487).
9

Id. at 557.

10

Id.

11

Heck, 512 U.S. at 487.

12

Beck, 195 F.3d at 557.

13

Id.
4

a plaintiff would not necessarily have to negate the element of the arrest’s lawfulness to
prevail.”14 Here, though Plaintiffs’ Complaint is admittedly difficult to decipher, it does appear
that Braun has plead facts sufficient to maintain an action that would not necessarily imply the
invalidity of any possible state court conviction.
For the reasons provided above, the Iron County Defendants’ Motion to Stay Claims of
Plaintiff Travis Braun will be denied and Braun’s claims will be limited to those claims that will
not demonstrate the invalidity of any potential pending state court conviction.
B.

MOTION TO AMEND
Plaintiffs Cheek and Clark have filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint.15 Cheek

and Clark assert that allowing them to “amend their complaint will bring greater judiciary
efficiency by discarding frivolous and/or improperly pled causes of action” and “will streamline
this litigation and allow the parties to focus on the primary issues in contention.”16 Both the Iron
County Defendants and the Cedar City Defendants argue that “under the present circumstances,
the Court should deny Cheek and Clark’s Motion to Amend.”17
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides the standard that must be met for a party
to amend its pleadings before trial. It provides:
A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after
serving it, or if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21
days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion
under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. In all other cases, a party may
14

Martinez v. City of Albuquerque, 184 F.3d 1123, 1125 (10th Cir. 1999).

15

Docket No. 85.

16

Id. at 1.

17

Docket Nos. 94, at 4; see also Docket No. 97, at 4.
5

amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's
leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.18
Cheek and Clark’s are not at a stage of the litigation at which they may amend their
pleadings as a matter of course and, as previously stated, the opposing parties have opposed, not
consented to Cheek and Clark’s amendment. Thus, Cheek and Clark must demonstrate that
justice requires the Court to grant them leave to amend their Complaint.19
Cheek and Clark provide as the principle reason that the Court should allow them to
amend their Complaint that they have retained new counsel and new counsel wishes to cure
defects in the Complaint created by previous counsel. Cheek and Clark also note that they have
not amended their Complaint since obtaining new counsel.
Based on the reasoning provided and the procedural history of the case, the Court finds
that allowing Cheek and Clark to amend their Complaint will best fulfill the requirements of
justice in this instance. As such, the Court will grant Cheek and Clark’s Motion for Leave to
Amend.
C.

DISMISSAL AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Iron County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Cedar City Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment are both premised on the same argument. Both motions argue that Cheek
and Clark’s claims are a collateral attack on their state court convictions and, thus, are barred by

18

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) (emphasis added).

19

Cheek and Clark state in their Motion for Leave to Amend that their Amended
Complaint is attached as “Exhibit A”. The Court notes that no “Exhibit A” was filed with the
Court and the Court has not received Cheek and Clark’s Amended Complaint.
6

Heck.20 The Court will deny defendants’ motions without prejudice pending the filing of Cheek
and Clark’s Amended Complaint.
III. CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that Iron County Defendants Motion to Stay Claims of Plaintiff Travis Braun
(Docket No. 65.) is DENIED. Moreover, it is
ORDERED that Cheek and Clark’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Docket No.
85) is GRANTED. Cheek and Clark are instructed to file their Amended Complaint with the
Court within fourteen (14) days of filing of this order. It is further
ORDERED that the Iron County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Claims of Haylee Cheek
and Michael Shane Clark (Docket No. 63) and Cedar City Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment on the Claims of Plaintiffs Cheek and Clark (Docket No. 79) are DENIED without
prejudice. The parties are advised that the hearing previously set for September 19, 2011, is
STRICKEN.

DATED: August 31, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

_________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge

20

See Docket Nos. 64 & 80.
7