NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

JAMES BAYLISS, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-890 (MLC)

:

Plaintiff, : O P I N I O N

:

v. :

:

NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE, :

et al., :

:

Defendants. :

 :

THE COURT ordering the plaintiff to show cause why this

action should not be stayed and administratively terminated (dkt.

entry no. 9, Order To Show Cause); and the plaintiff bringing

this action, inter alia, to recover damages under 42 U.S.C. §

(“Section”) 1983 related to his arrest (“Arrest”) by defendants

who are state troopers (“Federal Claims”) (dkt. entry no. 7, Am.

Compl.); and the plaintiff alleging that criminal charges

(“Charges”) were brought against him due to the circumstances

underlying the Arrest (id. at 4); and

THE COURT being concerned that the Charges either remain

pending or currently are the subject of judicial review in state

court; and it appearing — pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477 (1994) — that (1) the Court must determine whether a Section

1983 claim, “if successful, would have the hypothetical effect of

rendering [a] criminal conviction or sentence invalid”, and (2)

if a judgment for a plaintiff on such a claim would necessarily

Case 3:11-cv-00890-MLC-LHG Document 12 Filed 05/12/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 116
imply the invalidity of a conviction, then the claim is barred

until the conviction is overturned, Gibson v. Superint. of N.J.

Dep’t of Law & Pub. Safety, 411 F.3d 427, 451-52 (3d Cir. 2005)

(citations and quotations omitted); and

THE COURT thus being concerned that if the plaintiff were

successful on the Federal Claims, then an eventual underlying

state criminal conviction could be rendered invalid; and it

appearing that when a plaintiff brings a Section 1983 claim

before [being] 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.

Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007); and

THE COURT thus ordering the plaintiff to show cause why the

action should not be stayed and administratively terminated

pending the disposition of the Charges or any related criminal

matter, including any aspect thereof that is the subject of

either an appeal or a review by any municipal or state court at

any level; and the plaintiff in response opposing a stay, but

admitting that the Charges remain pending (dkt. entry no. 10, Pl.

Br. at 2-3); and the Court thus intending to (1) grant the Order

To Show Cause, and (2) stay and administratively terminate this

action pending the disposition of the Charges, including any

aspect thereof that is the subject of either an appeal or a

review by any municipal or state court at any level; and the

2

Case 3:11-cv-00890-MLC-LHG Document 12 Filed 05/12/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 117
Court advising the plaintiff to refrain from moving to reopen the

action until the Charges are fully resolved, and that he should

submit the proper documentation in support of that potential

motion, e.g., a final order disposing of the proceedings; and

THE PLAINTIFF BEING ADVISED that an order administratively

terminating a federal action is not the equivalent of a dismissal

of a complaint with prejudice, and is issued pursuant to the

Court’s inherent power to control the docket and in the interests

of judicial economy, see Delgrosso v. Spang & Co., 903 F.2d 234,

236 (3d Cir. 1990) (stating administrative termination not final

determination, as it “permits reinstatement and contemplates the

possibility of future proceedings”, and “does not purport to end

litigation on the merits”); and for good cause appearing, the

Court will issue an appropriate order and judgment.

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: May 12, 2011

3

Case 3:11-cv-00890-MLC-LHG Document 12 Filed 05/12/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 118