The d efendan ts w er e not se rved w ith proces s in the dis tr ic t  c o u r ta n d a r e no t pa r t i c i p a t i n g i n th i s a p p e a l

. A ft e r e x a mini ng the appell ant’ s briefand the re cord , w e have concl ud ed thatthe appe al i s app ro pri at e f or s um m ar y di s pos i t i on. Th e a ppe a l i s thu s s ub m i t t e d o n the br i e fa nd the r e c or d. See F ED . R. A PP . P . 34 (a )(2)(C ).



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 3345 P ETER G AKUBA, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. C HA RLES O ’B RI EN, e tal ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 12 C7296

—RubenC astil lo, Judg e.
S UB MI TT ED F EB RU AR Y 14, 2013

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 25, 2013 

Befo re P OSNER, W OO D , a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. PeterGakuba a pp eal s th e di str i ct cour t’ s di sm i ssa lo fhi s ci vi l

- ri ghts l aw sui t a gainst l aw2 N o. 12

- 3345

en for c em en t p er so n n el a n d oth er s w h o p ar tic ip at ed in a c r i mi na li nv e s t i g a t i o n o fh i m t ha tl e d t o s e xu a labuse charg es, wh i ch r em ai n pend i n g. Because the di str i ct co ur t sh o ul d ha ve stay ed so m e o fhi s cl ai m s an d a l l o we d o the r s t o p r o c e e d, we v a c a t e a nd r e man d. I n 2 0 0 6 a r un a wa y t e e na g e r a c c us e d Ga k ub a o fk i dnapp i ng and r ap i ng hi m i n Rockfor d, I l l i noi s. Gakuba all eges th at inves tig a t in g police barged i nt o his Roc kford hote lr oo m w ith out a warr ant a nd se i zed hi s wal l et and otherunspeci fi ed i tem s. T h e p oli ce a cted aftero btaini ng Gaku ba’ s v i deo r entalr eco rds fro m H ol l ywood Video to co rr obo ra te the a ccuser ’ s sto ry that he had spent t i m e watchi ng vi deos i n Gakuba’ s r oom . Gakuba w as ch ar ged i n W i nnebago County Ci rcui t Cour t with thre e counts of agg ra vate d s exual abuse; those ch arges re m ai n pend i ng. S ee 720 ILC S 5/12-16(d) (2006). I n 20 12 G a k u b a f il ed a com p lai nt i n th e E astern Divi si on o fthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s under 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983, a lleg i ng tha t pol i ce o ffi cer s a nd st ate p ro se c u to rs vio lat ed h is c ivil l i b e r tie s b y s ea rc h in g h is ho te lroom , se i zinghi s be l o ng i ng s, de ta i ni nghi m , a nd abusi ng the j ud i ci alpro ces s b y atte m pti ng to r evo ke hi s p r e t r i a lb o nd t o di s s ua de h i m f r o m fi l i nga c i v i lsui t. H e a l so soughtdam age s under the Vid eo Pri vacyPro

tect i on Act ( VPP A ) , 18 U
. S. C. § 2 710. (H e a sse rt s that h e d id n otlea rn th at H olly w oo d V id eo d i s c los ed h is re n ta l rec or d s u n til a p re tr ial h ea rin g in 20 11 .) The dis tr i ct c ourtdi sm i sse d t he sui t without prej ud i ce, g r an tingGa k uba leave t o a m en d hi s co m pl ainti fthe p en d in g in d ict m e n t in h is c rim in al c as e c on c lu d ed inN o. 12

- 3345 3 h i s f a v o r . T h e c o u r ta d v i s e d Ga k u b a th a tc e r t a i n c l a i ms aga i nst s om e o fthe defe nd ants w oul d be ba rr ed on i m m unity ground s, and that any r efi l i ng o fthe case should be m ade i n Rockfor d (the W est er n Divi si on o f the N or ther n Dist ri ct of I l l i noi s) , the si te of his a ll ega tions. ( W e note t ha t althou gh the d istri ct cou rt c ou ld h av e t ra n sf er re d th e c as e t o th e W es te rn D ivisio n, see 28 U .S.C . § 14 04 (a), v en u e w ou ld be p ro p er in ei therdi vi si on, se e i d. § 13 91 (b )(2) ; G r a h a m v . UPS , 519 F
. S up p. 2 d 8 0 1 , 8 0 9 ( N. D. I l l

. 2 0 0 7 ) ; 14D C HA RLES A LA N W R I GHT, A RTHU R R. M ILLER & E DWARD H. C OO PER, F ED ERAL P RACT I CE AN D P ROCEDURE § 3 809 ( 3d ed. 2007 )
. Div i si onal venue was a b oli shed by the J ud i ci alI m prove m ents and A c c es s to J usti ce Act of19 88, Pub. L. N o. 10 0- 702, Ti tl e X, § 1 00 1( a) , Nov
. 1 9, 198 8, 1 02 S ta t. 4 66 4. ) The co ur t den i ed Gakuba ’ s po stj udg m en t m o ti o ns t o r ec o nsid er an d h is re q u es t fo r lea ve to ap p ea l in f orm a paup er is
. On a pp e a lGa k ub a a s s e r t s tha th i s p e nd i ngs tat e c rim in al c as e d o e s n otp re ve n t h im from as se rt in g h is § 1 983 cl ai m s, wh i ch ar i se out ofthe de fen d an ts’ conduct i n i nvest i gat i ng o r pros ecuti ng hi s ca se ( he al so cl ar i fi es that he i s not ra isin g a cl ai m o fm al i ci ous abuse o fpro c e s s ). A t fi rst glance , one m ight ask w he th er G aku ba’s cl ai m s a re bar re d by Heckv. H um ph rey, 5 12 U
. S. 47 7 ( 19 94 )
. ButHeck do e s no t a pp l y ab s e nt a c o nv i c t i o n. S ee Wallacev. Ka to , 5 4 9 U
. S. 384, 393-94 (2007 ); Evans v. Posko n , 603 F.3d 362 , 363 (7th C ir. 2010). It i s Yo un ger v . Ha rris, 4 0 1 U. S
. 3 7( 1 9 7 1 ) , wi th w hi ch w e m ust be co ncern ed

. Yo un ger hol ds that federa lco urts m us t ab st ain fr o m t ak i ngj ur i sdi ct i o n o ve r fede r alc o n-4 N o. 12

- 3345 st i tu ti o na lc l ai m s th atmay inte r fer e wi tho ng o i ng sta te proce edi ngs. S ee SK S & A ssoc s., Inc. v. D a rt, 6 19 F.3 d 674, 67 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. Gakuba’ s cl ai m s o f damag es r es ul tingfr o m i l l eg als ea r ch es , s ei zu r es , a nd det en ti o ns meettha t des cr i pti o n: the y i nv o l ve c ons ti tu
ti onali ssu es thatm ay be l i ti gat ed duri ng the co urse o f hi s cr i m i nalcas e, se e Si m ps on v. Rowan , 73 F. 3d 134, 13 8 (7 th C ir. 19 95 ); Gil b e r t s on v. A l b r ight, 38 1 F
. 3d 965, 968 (9th Cir. 2003) ( e n b anc ); C a r r o l l v . C i tyo f Mo u n tC l e me ns , 13 9 F
. 3d 1072, 10 75 ( 6th C ir. 19 98)
. Deci ding thos e issues i n fed eral court cou ld u nd erm ine th e state cou rt proce edi ng, se e Si m ps on , 73 F. 3d at 13 8. Because m onet ar y r el i efi s n ot ava i l abl e t o hi m i n hi s defense o fc r i mi n a lc h a r g e s , h o we v e r, a n d b e c a u s e h i s c l a i ms m ay be co m e ti m e-ba r r ed by th e ti m e th e state pr o se cuti on has co ncl ud ed, the dis tr ict cour t s houl d have sta yed r atherthan dism i sse d G akuba’ s ci vi l

- ri ghts cl ai m s. S ee S i mp s on , 73 F. 3d at 138- 39; see al so G reen v . B end en , 281 F.3d 66 1, 66 7 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ); D
. L. v. U nified Sc h. D i s t
. No. 49 7, 392 F.3d 122 3, 1228 ( 10th Cir. 2004); Ha bich v. C ityof D earbo rn , 33 1 F.3d 52 4, 53 3 n. 4 ( 6th C ir. 2003). Gakuba al so continu es to press hi s co ntenti on th at H olly w oo d V id eo vio lat ed th e V P P A w h en it tu r ned ov er hi s vi deo r en ta lr ec o r ds to the po l i ce . The A c t m ak es “v id eo ta p e s e r vic e p ro vid er s” civ illy liab le to the ir cu stom ers ifthey disclose th eir r e nt al inform ati on under cer tain ci rcum sta nces. S ee 1 8 U. S
. C. § 2 71 0(b )-(c ); St e rk v. R e db ox Aut om at e d Re t ai l, LL C, 67 2 F. 3d 535, 53 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12)
. A ccord ing to G aku ba’s com pla i nt, H ol l ywood Video appears to quali fy as suchN o. 12

- 3345 5

a s er vi ce pr ovi der, se e 18 U
. S. C. § 2 710( a) ( 4); D ani e l v. C a n trel l , 3 7 5 F
. 3 d 3 7 7, 3 8 3 ( 6 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) , a n d i t s e mplo yee s know i ngl y di scl ose d his r entali n f or m ati on to the police w ithou t a w arran t, see 18 U
. S. C
. § 2710(b)(1), ( b ) (2)( C ); D a niel , 3 7 5 F
. 3 d a t3 8 1
. T he r e f o r e , the di s t ri ct co ur t sh o uld no t ha ve di smi ss ed Gakuba ’ s VPPA cl ai m s a gainst Hol l ywood Video. The j ud gm ent of the di str i ct c ourti s V ACATED a nd th e a c tio n is R EMA NDE D f o r fur th erpr o ce edi ng s co nsi st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

3- 25- 13