Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01209/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01209-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WISE, an individual;

CHRISTINA WISE, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv1209-GPC(BGS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF

DAVID WISE’S MOTION TO

AMEND COMPLAINT; MOTION

TO BIFURCATE; RENEWED

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL;

MOTION TO SUSPEND

CRIMINAL SENTENCE; MOTION

TO RULE CALIFORNIA CASE

LAW AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL;

AND MOTION TO ALLOW

MAILING OF NEW SERVICES OF

PROCESS AS PREMATURE

[Dkt. No. 63.]

vs.

DANIEL NORDELL, in his individual

and official capacity; JIM KOERBER,

in his official capacity; BONNIE

DUMANIS, in her official capacity;

THE SAN DIEGO DISTRICT

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; ANGELA

CHANGE, in her individual and

official capacity; THE COUNTY OF

SAN DIEGO; THE CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF MEDICAL

EXAMINERS; DOES 1-50,

Defendant.

On November 18, 2014, Plaintiff Davis Wise filed numerous motions in this

stayed case. (Dkt. No. 63.) On March 22, 2013, the Court issued an order staying the

case pursuant to Younger v Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) due to the ongoing criminal

proceeding in state court. Based on the most recent status report filed by Defendants,

on November 6, 2014, Plaintiff David Wise was sentenced to 7 years 9 months local

- 1 - [12cv1209-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:12-cv-01209-GPC-BGS Document 64 Filed 12/09/14 PageID.<pageID> 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

prison time and Plaintiff Christina Wise was sentenced to 5 years local prison time in

state court. The stay in this case has not yet been lifted. 

A “state proceeding is deemed ‘pending’ for purposes of Younger abstention

until state appellate remedies are exhausted.” Nichols v. Brown, 945 F. Supp. 2d 1079,

1095 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (citing Dubinka v. Judges of Superior Court of State of Cal. for

County fo Los Angeles, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994)); see New Orleans Public

Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 369 (1989) (“For Younger

purposes, the State’s trial-and -appeals process is treated as a unitary system, and for

a federal court to disrupt its integrity by intervening in mid-process would demonstrate

a lack of respect for the State as sovereign.”). Therefore, a party may not terminate the 

state judicial process early in order to attack a trial court’s judgment in federal court. 

New Orlean Public Serv., Inc., 491 U.S. at 369; Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592,

608 (1975). Moreover, a party must exhaust his state appellate remedies if he seeks

federal intervention in a state judicial proceeding. Huffman, 420 U.S. at 609.

Because Plaintiff David Wise recently pled guilty, he has not yet exhausted his

state appellate remedies. Accordingly, the Court DENIES his motions as premature. 

Once appellate remedies are exhausted, Plaintiff may move to lift the stay and proceed

with the case. 

Once a stay in this case is lifted, the Court cautions Plaintiff that if he seeks to

attack the validity or duration of confinement and the relief he seeks is for an

immediate release or a speedier release, his only remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. 

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481

(1994). However, if a plaintiff seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the United States

Supreme Court held that “in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional

conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness

could 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 a determination, or

- 2 - [12cv1209-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:12-cv-01209-GPC-BGS Document 64 Filed 12/09/14 PageID.<pageID> 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

called into question by a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. A claim

for damages which bears a direct relationship to the length or validity of a sentence

which has not already been shown to be invalid is not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at

487. A plaintiff’s § 1983 causes of action cannot be maintained and must be dismissed

to the extent the claims would “necessarily imply the invalidity” of an underlying

conviction or sentence, and no showing has been made that the conviction or sentence

has been invalidated. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir.

1995).

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 9, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - [12cv1209-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:12-cv-01209-GPC-BGS Document 64 Filed 12/09/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3