Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00967/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00967-2/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

LYNN HAMILTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHASTA COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 16-cv-0967 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 his 

claim for injunctive relief should not be dismissed pursuant to the Younger Abstention Doctrine. 

(ECF No. 6.) Thirty days passed, and plaintiff did not respond to the June 2, 2016 order. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is dismissed, and 

his claim for damages is stayed.

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

are Shasta County, the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office, and Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired to violate his constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleges that 

defendants illegally searched and seized his property, falsified warrants, and entered his private 

Case 2:16-cv-00967-KJM-KJN Document 8 Filed 07/25/16 Page 1 of 4
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

property for no good reason. Plaintiff alleges that defendants wrongfully brought charges against 

him and his brother. Plaintiff alleges that he is now falsely imprisoned, apparently based on those 

allegedly false charges. Plaintiff alleges that he is being maliciously prosecuted.

As relief, plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive relief. With respect to his claim 

for injunctive relief, plaintiff requests “relief” from “all fictitious charges.” The undersigned first 

addresses plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief.

In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court held that a federal court was 

prohibited from enjoining a state criminal proceeding without a valid showing of “extraordinary 

circumstances” that warrant federal intervention. Id. at 43–54. Under the Younger Abstention 

Doctrine, federal courts may not stay or enjoin pending state criminal court proceedings. Mann v. 

Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986). Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) the state 

court proceedings are ongoing; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the 

state proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional claims. Middlesex 

County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982).

In the June 2, 2016 order, the undersigned directed plaintiff to file briefing addressing the 

Middlesex factors. As discussed above, plaintiff failed to respond to the June 2, 2016 order. 

Accordingly, the undersigned herein applies the Middlesex factors based on the allegations in the 

complaint. 

It is clear from plaintiff’s complaint that state criminal proceedings are ongoing. It is also 

clear that these state criminal proceedings implicate state important interests. Finally, the 

undersigned finds that the state court proceedings provide plaintiff with an adequate opportunity 

to raise his constitutional claims. For these reasons, plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is barred 

by the Younger Abstention Doctrine. 

The undersigned next turns to plaintiff’s claim for money damages. As discussed in the 

June 2, 2016 order, 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 

Case 2:16-cv-00967-KJM-KJN Document 8 Filed 07/25/16 Page 2 of 4
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

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); 

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).

////

Case 2:16-cv-00967-KJM-KJN Document 8 Filed 07/25/16 Page 3 of 4
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

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

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

these circumstances, plaintiff’s claim for damages should be stayed pursuant to Wallace. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is dismissed on grounds that it is barred by the 

Younger Abstention doctrine;

2. Plaintiff’s claim for damages is stayed; within thirty days of the conclusion of the 

criminal proceedings against him, plaintiff shall notify the court;

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

Dated: July 22, 2016

Ham967.dis

Case 2:16-cv-00967-KJM-KJN Document 8 Filed 07/25/16 Page 4 of 4