UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

ANTHONY WAYNE CILEK, )

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. ) Cause No. 2:15-CV-151 JEM

)

HOBART POLICE DEPARTMENT, )

et al., )

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 63].

Anthony Wayne Cilek, a pro se prisoner, filed a lawsuit alleging that Defendants violated his rights

by conducting warrantless (or otherwise improper) searches and using excessive force during the

course of his arrest in criminal case 45G03-1406-FA-00020. Defendants argue that there is no

genuine issue of material fact as to any of these claims, and they are entitled to judgment as a matter

of law. However, the Court cannot rule on the merits of this motion at this time because this case

implicates the Younger abstention doctrine. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

“Younger exemplifies one class of cases in which federal-court abstention is required: When

there is a parallel, pending state criminal proceeding, federal courts must refrain from enjoining the

state prosecution.” Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584, 588 (2013). See also Gakuba

v. O’Brien, 711 F.3d 751, 753 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[F]ederal courts must abstain from taking

jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims that may interfere with ongoing state proceedings.

[Plaintiff’s] claims of damages resulting from illegal searches, seizures, and detentions meet that

description: they involve constitutional issues that may be litigated during the course of his criminal

case. Deciding those issues in federal court could undermine the state court proceeding.” (citations

omitted); Olsson v. O'Malley, 352 F. App’x 92, 94 (7th Cir. 2009) (implementing Younger
abstention where “state criminal proceedings against [plaintiff] are ongoing [and plaintiff] may

litigate the issues raised in his complaint on direct appeal or state collateral review”); Simpson v.

Rowan, 73 F.3d 134, 138 (7th Cir. 1995) (“Because an appeal of [plaintiff’s] conviction and death

penalty sentence is currently pending before the Illinois Supreme Court, the potential for federalstate friction is obvious. The district court avoided that friction by abstaining from deciding [his]

claims until the Illinois Supreme Court has had a full opportunity to review the circumstances

surrounding [his] conviction”).

The resolution of Defendants’ motion would require this court to rule on procedural issues

contested in the underlying ongoing State court criminal proceedings. Mr. Cilek’s lawsuit challenges

the validity of the search of his home. Defendants argue that this issue is barred by the doctrine of

res judicata because the criminal court ruled on the matter during a suppression hearing. However,

the period for Mr. Cilek to appeal his state court proceeding has not yet closed. Therefore, this issue

is not yet finalized in the State courts, and this Court must abstain from deciding the issue until it

has been finalized. See Simpson, 73 F.3d at 138 (“The policy against federal interference with

pending state proceedings would [] be frustrated as much by a damages award as it would by either

an injunction or a declaratory judgment. Younger abstention is therefore appropriate while the case

works its way through the state appellate process”). Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will

be denied without prejudice, with leave to re-file upon the completion of Mr. Cilek’s State court

proceedings (including any appeal). 

One final matter remains before this Court. Mr. Cilek has filed a motion to quash

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. [DE 66]. While Mr. Cilek lists case law in opposition

to Defendants’ motion, he does not identify any legal basis to quash the motion itself. Moreover,

2
Defendants were entitled to file their motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and this

Court’s order of October 27, 2016. [DE 58].

For these reasons, the Court: (1) DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants’ Motion

for Summary Judgment [DE 63]; (2) STAYS all further proceedings in this case pending the

resolution of the state criminal proceedings (including any appeal) in case 45G03-1406-FA-00020;

(3) ORDERS Mr. Cilek to file a status report with the Court within 30 days of the conclusion of his

State court proceedings (including the state appellate process) in case 45G03-1406-FA-00020; and

(4) GRANTS Defendants leave to re-file their motion within 60 days after Mr. Cilek has filed his

status report; and (5) DENIES Mr. Cilek’s motion to quash [DE 66].

SO ORDERED this 5th day of July, 2017.

s/ John E. Martin 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

Plaintiff, pro se

3