Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00706/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00706-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANIEL L. CARRILLO, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

COUNTY OF SISKIYOU, SISKIYOU 

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 

SISKIYOU COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF 

ROBERT STEWART, 

 Defendants. 

_____________________________/ 

No. Civ. S-07-0706 RRB CMK 

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

AND ORDER

The matter before the court is County of Siskiyou, Siskiyou 

County Sheriff’s Department and Siskiyou County Deputy Sheriff 

Robert Stewart’s (“Stewart”) (collectively “defendants”) motion 

to dismiss or stay the instant action. Daniel Carrillo 

(“Carrillo”) opposes the motion. For the reasons stated below, 

the court GRANTS the motion.1

 

1 Inasmuch as the court concludes the parties have submitted 

memoranda thoroughly discussing the law and evidence in support 

of their positions, it further concludes oral argument is 

neither necessary nor warranted with regard to the instant 

matter. See Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County, Inc., 171 

Case 2:07-cv-00706-JAM-CMK Document 22 Filed 04/15/08 Page 1 of 6
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I. BACKGROUND 

On March 1, 2006, Deputy Stewart effected a traffic stop of 

Carrillo for seatbelt and headlight violations. Compl. ¶ 7. 

During the stop, Deputy Stewart shot Carrillo twice with his 

firearm, id. ¶ 8, after Carrillo allegedly attempted to drive 

away while Deputy Stewart was partially inside his vehicle. 

Answer ¶¶ 42-44. Following the shooting, Carrillo fled in his 

car, leading law enforcement on a chase that ultimately ended at 

a hospital. Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13. Upon reaching the hospital, 

Carrillo was arrested and given medical treatment. Id. ¶¶ 13-

14. 

On March 17, 2006, a Siskiyou County Grand Jury returned an 

indictment against Carrillo accusing him of the following 

crimes: (1) violation of California Health and Safety Code 

§ 11377, possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine); 

(2) violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11379, 

transportation of a controlled substance (methamphetamine); (3) 

violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11364, 

possession of paraphernalia; (4) violation of Penal Code 

§ 245(c), assault by means of force likely to produce great 

bodily injury upon a peace officer; (5) violation of Penal Code 

 

F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999)(explaining that if the parties 

provided the district court with complete memoranda of the law 

and evidence in support of their positions, ordinarily oral 

argument would not be required). 

Case 2:07-cv-00706-JAM-CMK Document 22 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 6
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

§ 245(c), assault with a deadly weapon upon a peace officer;2 (6) 

violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11379, 

transportation of a controlled substance (methamphetamine); and 

(7) violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11378, 

possession for sale of a controlled substance (methamphetamine). 

Exh. A, attached to Decl. of Christine Winte (Docket at 17). On 

April 13, 2007, Carrillo brought an action against defendants 

alleging an excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

several state law claims, including battery, aggravated assault, 

negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

Docket at 2. On February 27, 2008, defendants filed a motion to 

dismiss or stay the instant action. Docket at 16. 

Specifically, defendants seek to stay Carrillo’s § 1983 claim 

during the pendency of the parallel state criminal proceedings 

and to dismiss Carrillo’s state law claims. Id. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. State Law Claims 

 California Government Code § 945.3 provides in pertinent 

part: “No person charged by indictment . . . charging a criminal 

offense may bring a civil action for money or damages against a 

peace officer or the public entity employing a peace officer 

 

2

 Count Five of the indictment contains a special allegation 

alleging a violation of Penal Code § 12022(b)(2), personal use 

of a deadly weapon (automobile). 

Case 2:07-cv-00706-JAM-CMK Document 22 Filed 04/15/08 Page 3 of 6
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

based upon conduct of the peace officer relating to the offense 

for which the accused is charged, including an act or omission 

in investigating or reporting the offense or arresting or 

detaining the accused, while the charges against the accused are 

pending before a superior court. Any applicable statute of 

limitations for filing and prosecuting these actions shall be 

tolled during the period that the charges are pending before a 

superior court.” The purposes of § 945.3 are to eliminate the 

use of civil damage complaints as plea bargaining levers and to 

prevent the use of civil actions as a discovery device to 

inquire into prosecutorial information while criminal charges 

are pending. Harding v. Galceran, 889 F.2d 906, 908-09 (9th 

Cir. 1989). In California, although the statute of limitations 

for § 1983 actions is tolled by § 945.3 while criminal charges 

are pending, § 945.3 does not prohibit a criminal defendant from 

bringing a § 1983 action in federal court while state criminal 

charges are pending. Id. at 908; Torres v. City of Santa Ana, 

108 F.3d 224, 226-27 (9th Cir. 1997). Based upon the foregoing, 

the court concludes that Carrillo is not entitled to go forward 

with his state law claims while the state criminal charges are 

pending. However, because § 945.3 does not prohibit Carrillo 

from bringing his § 1983 claim while the state criminal charges 

are pending, the court must consider whether this claim should 

proceed. 

Case 2:07-cv-00706-JAM-CMK Document 22 Filed 04/15/08 Page 4 of 6
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

B. Section 1983 Claim 

In Wallace v. Kato, 127 S.Ct. 1091 (2007), the United 

States Supreme Court stated that if a plaintiff files a § 1983 

false arrest claim before he or she is convicted, or files any 

other claim related to rulings that likely will be made in a 

pending or anticipated criminal trial, it is within the power of 

the court, and accords with common practice, to stay the civil 

action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal 

case is ended. Id. at 1098. If the plaintiff is then 

convicted, and if the stayed civil suit would impugn that 

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

dismissal; otherwise, the case may proceed. Wallace, 127 S. Ct. 

at 1098. 

 In this case, because Carrillo’s § 1983 claim is premised 

upon Deputy Stewart’s use of force, this claim is related to 

rulings that will likely be made in an anticipated criminal 

trial as Carrillo has been indicted for, among other things, 

assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury 

upon a peace officer and assault with a deadly weapon 

(automobile) upon a peace officer. As such, the court will 

follow the Supreme Court’s guidance in Wallace and exercise its 

Case 2:07-cv-00706-JAM-CMK Document 22 Filed 04/15/08 Page 5 of 6
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

discretionary authority to stay Carrillo’s § 1983 claim during 

the pendency of the parallel state criminal proceedings.3 

III. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS the motion. 

The instant action is stayed pending the resolution of the 

parallel state criminal proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2008. 

 s/RALPH R. BEISTLINE 

 United States District Judge 

 

3

 To the extent that Carrillo relies on Smithart v. Towery, 

79 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 1996) and Cabrera v. City of Huntington 

Park, 159 F.3d 374 (9th Cir. 1998) to argue that a stay of the 

instant action is inappropriate, the court finds such reliance 

misplaced. Both Smithart and Cabrera are distinguishable 

insofar as neither case considered the propriety of staying a § 

1983 claim during the pendency of parallel criminal proceedings. 

As such, neither Smithart nor Cabrera compel the conclusion that 

a stay of the instant action is inappropriate. 

Case 2:07-cv-00706-JAM-CMK Document 22 Filed 04/15/08 Page 6 of 6