Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02126/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02126-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christopher Angelo Brown,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Phoenix Police Department, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-02126-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

 Before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Civil Case Pending Criminal Trial 

Pursuant to Younger and Heck (Doc. 35). Plaintiff was arrested by the Phoenix Police 

Department on March 22, 2014, after allegedly driving drunk, resisting arrest, and 

assaulting one or more officers. (Doc. 35 at 2.) At the police station, officers drew 

Plaintiff’s blood without consent in order to measure its alcohol content, notwithstanding 

Plaintiff’s objection that drawing blood violated his religious beliefs. (Id.) Plaintiff sued 

Defendants in Maricopa County Superior Court on July 24, 2014, seeking damages under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivation of his Fourth and First Amendment rights. 

(Doc. 1-1 at 2-3.) Defendants removed the case to this court on September 25, 2014. 

(Doc. 1.) In an indictment dated October 7, 2014, the state charged Plaintiff with 

aggravated assault, resisting arrest, aggravated driving, possession or use of marijuana, 

and possession of drug paraphernalia. (Doc. 35-1 at 6-7.) According to the state court 

docket, Plaintiff’s criminal trial is currently scheduled for July 13, 2015, although 

Defendants claim that “a realistic trial date for the State would be in August 2015.” 

Case 2:14-cv-02126-NVW Document 42 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

(Doc. 35 at 3.) Defendants now move to stay Plaintiff’s action in this court until his 

criminal case is resolved. 

 Defendants make their request pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), 

where the Supreme Court held that federal district courts should abstain from considering 

requests to enjoin state criminal proceedings unless the state criminal statute is 

“flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions in every clause, 

sentence and paragraph” or the prosecution is motivated by “bad faith” or “harassment.” 

401 U.S. at 53-54. Younger abstention is grounded in a concern that the federal courts 

endeavor to “vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests,” but only in “ways 

that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the States.” Id. at 44. 

“Younger principles apply in an action for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in 

which the federal plaintiff brings a constitutional challenge to a state proceeding when 

that proceeding is ongoing; the state proceeding is of a judicial nature, implicating 

important state interests; and the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating his federal 

constitutional issues in that proceeding.” Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 984, (9th 

Cir. 2004). But this is so only when determination of the federal plaintiff’s constitutional 

claims “would have the same practical effect on the state proceedings as the injunctive 

relief condemned in Younger.” Id. 

 Here, Defendants do not explain how adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims in this 

court would interfere with the pending state criminal prosecution. They do not allege that 

judgment in Plaintiff’s favor would lead to the exclusion of evidence in state court or 

otherwise prevent the state from vindicating its interest in enforcing its criminal laws. 

Without greater knowledge of the state proceedings, this court cannot determine that 

Younger abstention is appropriate. 

 Defendants also cite to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The Supreme 

Court held in that case that “in order to recover damages for 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 

Case 2:14-cv-02126-NVW Document 42 Filed 06/24/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

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, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” 512 

U.S. at 486-87. As Plaintiff has not yet been convicted of any crime, Heck is simply 

inapplicable. 

 Defendants’ Motion will therefore be denied. Nevertheless, given that Plaintiff’s 

criminal trial should be resolved within two months at most, the court will continue the 

Rule 16 scheduling conference, currently set for July 24, 2015, until September 4, 2015. 

Consistent with the court’s June 4, 2015 Scheduling Order (Doc. 33), the parties must 

provide initial disclosures at least twenty-one days prior to, and file a discovery plan no 

more than seven days prior to, the scheduling conference. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Civil Case 

Pending Criminal Trial Pursuant to Younger and Heck (Doc. 35) is denied. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Rule 16 scheduling conference in this case 

is continued until September 4, 2015, at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 504, Sandra Day 

O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003. 

 Dated this 24th day of June, 2015. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-02126-NVW Document 42 Filed 06/24/15 Page 3 of 3