Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06197/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06197-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DANNYE. SMITH, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

14"' IL~ D 

United ~..aws Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

FEB 51992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-6197 

) 

ROBERT MACY, MELVIN M. FISHER, JR.,) 

JACK D. DAVIS, MIKE GOOLD, TIMOTHY) 

OGLVIE, CAPT. K. THURSTON, G. LEE, ) 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-1139-A) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE VALLEY ) 

BROOK POLICE DEPARTMENT, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Danny E. Smith brought an action in the district 

court against a number of defendants raising both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

claims and claims cognizable only under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-6197 Document: 010110221734 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 1 
district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of two 

defendants whom the court held were entitled to absolute immunity. 

The court dismissed none of the claims, but it stayed action on 

the§ 1983 claims until plaintiff exhausted his habeas corpus 

remedies in state court. 

In response to this court's questioning whether we had 

appellate jurisdiction, plaintiff dropped his appeal as to the two 

defendants who were dismissed on absolute immunity grounds and 

challenged only the stay order. He obtained a 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) 

order from the district court for an interlocutory appeal of the 

court's stay order. The district court appears to invite us to 

determine when a district court should issue a stay order pending 

exhaustion of state remedies when there are§ 1983 claims in a 

mixed petition like that before the court. Our clerk's office may 

have mistakenly treated the§ 1292(b) certification as one under 

Fed . R. Civ. F. 54(b); that is of no moment, however, because we 

grant the appeal under§ 1292(b). 

As we read Freiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475 (1973), a 

federal court has the power to entertain a complaint challenging 

both conditions of confinement, cognizable under 42 U. S.C. § 1983, 

and the duration of confinement, cognizable under 28 U.S . C. 

§ 2254, provided plaintiff has exhausted his state remedies as to 

the § 2254 claims. See Taylor v. Wallace, 931 F.2d 698, 699 n.1 

(10th Cir. 1991). 

The Supreme Court has expressly stated that the federal 

§ 1983 claim can be litigated at the same time that the plaintiff 

is also exhausting his habeas claims in state court. Freiser, 411 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-6197 Document: 010110221734 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 2 
U.S. at 499 n.14. Thus, the federal district court in the instant 

case had the power to proceed to adjudicate the § 1983 claims 

despite the lack of state court exhaustion of the§ 2254 claims. 

See Herrera v. Harkins, 949 F.2d 1096, 1098 (10th Cir. 1991). At 

the same time, we think it is clear that the federal district 

court had authority, if the circumstances were appropriate, to 

stay the determination of the§ 1983 claim pending the outcome of 

the state court exhaustion. The decision whether to stay or 

adjudicate will depend upon the particular facts. 

In the instant case the district court's stay order is 

supported by several facts. Plaintiff apparently has dropped his 

claim for damages, which is generally the heart of a§ 1983 claim. 

Plaintiff has alleged that illegal wiretaps were placed on his 

telephone by state officers, but he does not set out sufficient 

facts to indicate whether the illegality is a supposed violation 

of state or federal law. Plaintiff seeks an order invoking the 

exclusionary rule on evidence seized from his premises and an 

order ruling that the stacking of charges against him was 

"illegal " and "improper" as well as unconstitutional. The 

resolution of the habeas petition in state court may obviate the 

federal court's need to resolve some of the constitutional claims 

in the § 1983 action and may clarify others. Furthermore, the 

district court's stay order the statute of 

limitations on plaintiff's 

indicates that 

claims apparently would run before 

state court exhaustion would be concluded, which is one factor 

suggesting that a stay order may be appropriate. See Parkhurst v. 

Wyoming, 641 F.2d 775, 777 (10th Cir. 1981). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-6197 Document: 010110221734 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 3 
The appropriate standard to review the district court's stay 

order is abuse of discretion. In the instant case we can find no 

such abuse. We therefore AFFIRM the stay order issued by the 

district court . 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-6197 Document: 010110221734 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 4