(PC) Carter v. Cox ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLYDE DAVID CARTER, No. 2:20-CV-1322-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 B. COX, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendant’s unopposed motion, ECF No. 18, for a 19 stay of proceedings. 20 This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s original complaint alleging excessive force by 21 Defendant Cox, a correctional officer, arising from an incident at High Desert State Prison on 22 August 29, 2019. See ECF No. 1. The Court has determined the matter appropriate for service, 23 see ECF No. 10, and Defendant has fled an answer, see ECF No. 19. In his motion for a stay of 24 proceedings, Defendant advises the Court that Plaintiff is currently being prosecuted in the 25 Lassen County Superior Court on criminal charges of battery on a peace officer stemming from 26 the August 29, 2019, incident. See ECF No. 18-3, ps. 7-10. Defendant seeks a stay of the current 27 action pending resolution of the criminal action in state court, arguing that the current action will 28 be barred if Plaintiff is convicted. See ECF No. 18. 1 Where a § 1983 action seeking monetary damages or declaratory relief alleges 2 | constitutional violations which would necessarily imply the invalidity of a criminal conviction or 3 | sentence, or the result of a prison disciplinary hearing resulting in imposition of a sanction 4 | affecting the overall length of confinement, such a claim is not cognizable under § 1983 unless 5 | the conviction or sentence has first been invalidated on appeal, by habeas petition, or through 6 | some similar proceeding. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-84 (1994). As Defendant 7 | notes, Plaintiff's conviction in the Lassen County Superior Court criminal action would require a 8 | finding that the level of force used by Cox was warranted by Plaintiff's conduct. See 9 | Cunningham v. Gates, 312 F.3d 1148, 1154-55 (9th Cir. 2002, as amended Jan. 14, 2003), cert. 10 denied, 538 U.S. 960 (2003). Success on the merits of this case, in which Plaintiff alleges 11 | excessive force, would necessarily invalidate any findings resulting in conviction in the state 12 | court criminal action. See id. Thus, if Plaintiff is convicted, the current action would be barred 13 | under Heck. 14 Given the pendency of the state court criminal action arising from the same 15 | incident giving rise to Plaintiffs civil rights claim, the Court finds a stay of proceedings 1s 16 || appropriate until the state court criminal action is resolved. See Wallace v. Kato, 127 S.Ct. 1091 17 | (2007); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. Defendant’s unopposed motion for a stay of proceedings, ECF No. 18, is 20 | granted; 21 2. This action is stayed pending completion of criminal proceedings in the 22 | Lassen County Superior Court, case no. CC037548; and 23 3. Defendant shall file a report advising the Court of the status of the 24 | referenced state court action within 60 days of the date of this order, and every 60 days thereafter, 25 | until the state court action is concluded. 26 | Dated: August 18, 2021 Sx