Case ID: f-appx_358/html/0961-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      MEMORANDUM \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Aurelius Augustinus Kenneth PEYTON, aka Aurelius Augustinus Kenn Peyton, aka Ellis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeffrey BURDICK, Detective; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-16241.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009 .
    Filed Dec. 16, 2009.
    Aurelius Augustinus Kenn Peyton, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.
    Virginia Anne Gennaro, Esquire, Chief Counsel, City Attorney, City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield, CA, Michael E. Lehman, Esquire, Michael George Marderosian, Marderosian, Runyon, Cercone, Lehman & Armo, Fresno, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Aurelius Augustinus Kenneth Peyton, a pre-trial detainee, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging manipulation of evidence, perjury, and false arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

Because Peyton’s claims implicate rulings that are likely to be made in the pending state court criminal proceeding, see Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-90, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), the district court should have stayed the section 1983 action “until the criminal case ... is ended,” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007), Therefore we vacate the judgment and remand for the district court to stay the action until the criminal proceedings are concluded.

Appellees’ motion to strike the reply brief in its entirety is granted and their motion to strike portions of the reply brief is denied as moot. Appellees’ shall bear appellant’s costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.