Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02136/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02136-0/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

DANNY MCCOY,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

IAN WONG,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-10-2136 TEH (PR)

ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS AND

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE

Plaintiff, an inmate presently incarcerated at the

Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, California, has filed

a pro se Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that El Cerrito

Police Officer Ian Wong unlawfully detained Plaintiff and falsified

a police report, thereby violating Plaintiff’s constitutional

rights. Plaintiff seeks damages. Doc. #1. 

I

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of

cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or

officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Case 3:10-cv-02136-TEH Document 4 Filed 08/16/10 Page 1 of 4
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

The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint,

or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pleadings filed by pro se

litigants, however, must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

II

To recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional

conviction or prison sentence, or for other harm caused by actions

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a

plaintiff in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action 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. Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that

relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so

invalidated is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 487.

The rationale of Heck applies only if there is an existing

conviction, however. Wallace v Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393–94 (2007). 

Case 3:10-cv-02136-TEH Document 4 Filed 08/16/10 Page 2 of 4
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

3

The contention that “an action which would impugn an anticipated

future conviction cannot be brought until that conviction occurs and

is set aside” goes “well beyond Heck.” Id. at 393 (emphasis in

original). Nonetheless, if a plaintiff files a 42 U.S.C. § 1983

claim “related to rulings that likely will be made in a pending or

anticipated criminal trial[], it is within the power, 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 393–94. 

A review of the court docket shows that criminal

proceedings against Plaintiff are pending in this Court. See United

States of America v. McCoy, No. 09-cr-00337-CW (N.D. Cal. filed

April 1, 2009). Accordingly, a stay of these proceedings under the

rationale of Wallace is in order here. If Plaintiff is later

convicted, and if the stayed civil suit would impugn that

conviction, Heck will require dismissal; otherwise, the case may

proceed. Wallace, 549 U.S. at 394. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:10-cv-02136-TEH Document 4 Filed 08/16/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

III

Good cause appearing, the instant proceedings are STAYED

and the case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. Nothing further will take

place in this matter until the criminal proceedings against

Plaintiff come to an end, and, within thirty (30) days thereafter,

Plaintiff moves to reopen the case, lift the Court’s stay and amend

the stayed Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 08/13/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.10\McCoy-10-2136-stay-ac-wallace v. kato.wpd

Case 3:10-cv-02136-TEH Document 4 Filed 08/16/10 Page 4 of 4