Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00451/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00451-2/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

CARLOS BIVIESCAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NICK DOAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 16-cv-0451 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. (ECF No. 6.) On March 18, 

2016, the undersigned dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 4) 

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s amended complaint. (ECF No. 7.)

The only named defendant is Davis Police Officer Doane. Plaintiff alleges that he 

(plaintiff) is being prosecuted for a homicide that occurred at a bar in Davis, California on 

September 19, 2015. Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Yolo County Jail. Plaintiff alleges that the 

incident was recorded on survillence video. Plaintiff alleges that while the video is exculpatory, 

defendant Doane provided Yolo County prosecutors with erroneous and incomplete information. 

Plaintiff alleges that an arrest warrant for plaintiff was issued based on incomplete information 

provided by defendant Doane. Plaintiff alleges that he was falsely arrested based on the 

incomplete information provided by defendant Doane.

Case 2:16-cv-00451-TLN-KJN Document 8 Filed 04/11/16 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

As relief, plaintiff seeks money damages and the dismissal of the pending criminal 

charges. 

Under the Supreme Court's holding in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), “a § 1983 

action [for damages] that would call into question the lawfulness of a plaintiff's conviction or 

confinement is not cognizable[.]” Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1013 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Thus, when a criminal defendant files a § 1983 action, courts must “determine whether a 

judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or 

sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed[.]” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. Conversely, “if 

the plaintiff’s action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding 

criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be allowed to proceed[.]” Heck, 512 

U.S. at 487.

The prevailing rule in the Ninth Circuit prior to 2007 was that “Heck applies to pending 

criminal charges, and [therefore] a claim, that if successful would necessarily imply the invalidity 

of a conviction in a pending criminal prosecution, does not accrue so long as the potential for a 

conviction in the pending criminal prosecution continues to exist.” Harvey, 210 F.3d at 1014. 

However, in 2007, the United States Supreme Court rejected the principle that “an action which 

would impugn an anticipated future conviction cannot be brought until that conviction occurs and 

is set aside,” characterizing that approach as a “bizarre extension of Heck.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 

U.S. 384, 393 (2007) (emphasis in original). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court provided the 

following guidance to district courts:

If a plaintiff files a false-arrest claim before he has been convicted 

(or files any other claim related to rulings that will likely 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. If the plaintiff is ultimately convicted, and if the 

stayed civil suit would impugn that conviction, Heck will require 

dismissal; otherwise, the civil action will proceed, absent some 

other bar to suit.

Kato, 549 U.S. at 393–94 (internal citations omitted).

Thus, if a judgment for plaintiff on any of his civil claims would “necessarily imply the 

invalidity of a conviction” on any of the pending criminal charges against him, the court has 

Case 2:16-cv-00451-TLN-KJN Document 8 Filed 04/11/16 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

discretion to stay plaintiff’s civil action until the resolution of that criminal charge. Heck, 512 

U.S. at 487.

Plaintiff’s false arrest claims against defendant Doane necessarily imply the invalidity of 

his conviction on the pending charges. Accordingly, pursuant to Heck and Wallace, plaintiff’s

claim for damages, based on his false arrest claims, are stayed until the resolution of his criminal 

charges.

Plaintiff also requests dismissal of the pending criminal charges. As discussed in the 

March 18, 2016 order, this request for relief is barred by the doctrine of Younger abstention. See 

also Fort Belknap Indian Community v. Mazurek, 43 F.3d 428, 431 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 

516 U.S. 806 (1995) (abstention appropriate if ongoing state judicial proceedings implicate 

important state interests and offer adequate opportunity to litigate federal constitutional issues); 

World Famous Drinking Emporium v. City of Tempe, 820 F.2d 1079, 1082 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(Younger abstention doctrine applies when the following three conditions exist: (1) ongoing state 

judicial proceeding; (2) implication of an important state interest in the proceeding; and (3) an 

adequate opportunity to raise federal questions in the proceedings).

Only in the most unusual circumstances is a petitioner entitled to have the federal court 

intervene by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been 

appealed from, and the case concluded in the state courts. Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764–65 

(9th Cir. 1972). See Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83–84 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 

1014 (1980). Extraordinary circumstances exist where irreparable injury is both great and 

immediate; for example, where the state law is flagrantly and patently violative of express 

constitutional prohibitions or where there is a showing of bad faith, harassment, or other unusual 

circumstances that would call for equitable relief. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. at 46, 53–54.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances exist justifying federal 

court intervention in his ongoing state court criminal prosecution. Accordingly, plaintiff’s 

request for judicial intervention in his ongoing criminal proceedings is denied.

////

////

Case 2:16-cv-00451-TLN-KJN Document 8 Filed 04/11/16 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for judicial intervention in his ongoing criminal proceedings is 

denied;

2. Plaintiff’s request for money damages based on his false arrest claim is 

administratively stayed pending the resolution of plaintiff’s criminal charges; plaintiff shall notify 

the court within thirty days of the resolution of his criminal charges; 

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

Dated: April 11, 2016

Biv451.sta

Case 2:16-cv-00451-TLN-KJN Document 8 Filed 04/11/16 Page 4 of 4