Case Name: Jaime ALVAREZ; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a Municipal Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Julio Estrada, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-22
Citations: 160 F. App'x 608
Docket Number: No. 03-56086
Parties: Jaime ALVAREZ; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a Municipal Corporation; et al., Defendants—Appellees, and Julio Estrada, Defendant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 160
Pages: 608–609

Head Matter:
Jaime ALVAREZ; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a Municipal Corporation; et al., Defendants—Appellees, and Julio Estrada, Defendant.
No. 03-56086.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2005.
Decided Dec. 22, 2005.
James R. Rosen, Esq., Law Office of James R. Rosen, Beverly Hills, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Ryan D. Saba, Esq., Office of the City Attorney, San Bernardino, CA.
James F. Penman, Esq., Office of the City Attorney, Christopher D. Lockwood, Esq., Arias Lockwood & Gray, San Bernardino, CA, Joseph A. Arias, Esq., for Defendants-Appellees.
Larry M. Arnold, Esq., Cummins & White, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees on the merits and the award of costs. At issue is whether Plaintiffs' civil claims against the City of San Bernadino and the County of San Bernadino's District Attorney, arising out of a lengthy criminal investigation and filed before criminal charges were brought against Appellants, are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Because there was no criminal conviction at the time that the district court was considering Appellees' motion for summary judgment, the court should not have granted summary judgment and costs against Appellants. Rather, the district court should have simply stayed the civil proceedings until the criminal case had been resolved.
We REVERSE the grant of summary judgment and costs against Plaintiffs and REMAND for the district court to stay consideration of the motion for summary judgment pending the resolution of the related criminal proceeding.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.