Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00951/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00951-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE M. FERGUSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Ms. K. HARRIS, D.A., CURTIS

KARNOW, Judge,

Defendants. ___________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-0951 MMC 

ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS

AND ADMINISTRATIVELY

CLOSING CASE

On February 14, 2008, plaintiff, a California pretrial detainee incarcerated at the San

Francisco County Jail in San Bruno, California, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By separate order filed concurrently

herewith, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested on November 27, 2007, but was not arraigned

until December 9, 2007. He seeks monetary damages for the violation of his constitutional

right to a speedy trial.

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss

any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. §

1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.

Case 3:08-cv-00951-MMC Document 5 Filed 04/30/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Plaintiff seeks damages for the violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, a

violation which, if proven, would require dismissal of the charges against him. See McNeely

v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2003). In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87

(1994), the United States Supreme Court held that in order to state a claim for damages for an

allegedly unconstitutional conviction or term of imprisonment, or for other harm caused by

actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a plaintiff

asserting a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must prove that the conviction or sentence has been

reversed or declared invalid. See id. at 486-87. A claim for damages bearing that

relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable

under § 1983. Id. at 487. Such damages claims will not be barred under Heck if the plaintiff

has not yet been convicted, however. See Wallace v. Kato, 127 S. Ct. 1091, 1098 (2007)

(holding Heck does not encompass principle that “an action which would impugn an

anticipated future conviction cannot be brought until that conviction occurs and is set aside.”) 

Nonetheless, the claims should not go forward if the plaintiff’s criminal proceedings are still

pending; rather, “it is within the power of the district court, and in accord with common

practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is

ended.” See id. 

Here, plaintiff seeks damages for the violation of his right to a speedy trial, but he has

not yet been convicted; accordingly, the Court will stay further proceedings in this matter

until plaintiff’s criminal proceedings have concluded. 

For the foregoing reasons, this action is hereby STAYED. If plaintiff is convicted and

intends to proceed with his claims, within thirty (30) days of the date the criminal

proceedings against him have concluded he shall file a motion asking the Court to lift the

Case 3:08-cv-00951-MMC Document 5 Filed 04/30/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

If the stay is lifted and the Court finds plaintiff’s claims would impugn the validity of

his conviction, the action will be dismissed under Heck; if no such finding is made, the

action will proceed at that time, absent some other bar to suit. See Wallace, 127 S. Ct. at

1098. 

3

stay.1

The Clerk is hereby directed to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the case. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 30, 2008 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00951-MMC Document 5 Filed 04/30/08 Page 3 of 3