Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00968/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00968-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN HAMILTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOM BOSENKO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 16-cv-0968 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a county prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. 

(ECF No. 5.)

On June 2, 2016, the undersigned granted plaintiff thirty days to show cause why this 

action should not be stayed. (ECF No. 8.) Thirty days passed and plaintiff did not respond to the 

June 2, 2016 order. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, this action is stayed.

This action proceeds on the original complaint filed May 6, 2016. Named as defendant 

are Shasta County, Shasta County Sheriff’s Department, Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko,

and Shasta County District Attorney. Plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired to kidnap 

plaintiff and his brother from their homestead in violation of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff 

alleges that he is being maliciously prosecuted. Plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired to take 

away all of his assets and deprive him of his home due to “one agency [sic] failure to do their job 

Case 2:16-cv-00968-TLN Document 10 Filed 07/25/16 Page 1 of 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

2

correctly.” Plaintiff seeks money damages.

In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994), the Supreme Court held:

[T]o recover damages for an 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 habeas 

corpus[.]

512 U.S. at 487-87.

Heck extends beyond claims challenging convictions to bar a prisoner’s claims for 

wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution, i.e., the claims presented by plaintiff in this action. 

See, e.g., Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 703 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that Heck bars plaintiff’s 

civil rights claims alleging wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution and conspiracy among police 

officers to bring false charges against him); Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 

380 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining that Heck bars plaintiff’s false arrest and imprisonment claims 

until conviction is invalidated); Smithart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir. 1996) (Heck bars 

plaintiff’s civil rights claims alleging that defendants lacked probable cause to arrest and brought 

unfounded criminal charges). 

Heck does not, however, bar a plaintiff from bringing an action asserting these claims 

during the pendency of the criminal action. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393–94 (2007), 

explains that such action should instead be stayed:

[i]f a plaintiff files a false-arrest claim before he [or she] has been 

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 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.

459 U.S. at 393-94.

Later, “[i]f the plaintiff is then convicted, and if the stayed civil suit would impugn that 

conviction, Heck requires dismissal; otherwise, the case may proceed.” Yuan v. City of Los 

Angeles, 2010 WL 3632810, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2010) (citing Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393); 

Case 2:16-cv-00968-TLN Document 10 Filed 07/25/16 Page 2 of 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

3

Peyton v. Burdick, 358 Fed. Appx. 961 (9th Cir. 2009) (vacating judgment in § 1983 case where 

claims implicated rulings likely to be made in pending state court criminal proceeding and 

remanding for district court to stay action until pending state court proceedings concluded).

Plaintiff’s claim for damages is based on the pending criminal charges. Plaintiff’s claims 

implicate rulings likely to be made in the pending state court criminal proceeding. Under these 

circumstances, this action should be stayed pursuant to Wallace. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is stayed; within thirty days of the conclusion of the criminal proceedings 

against him, plaintiff shall notify the court;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively close this action. 

Dated: July 22, 2016

Ham968.dis

Case 2:16-cv-00968-TLN Document 10 Filed 07/25/16 Page 3 of 3