1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NEBIYU SHEFREW SOLOMAN, 10227616, Case No. 23-cv-02044-CRB (PR)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER STAYING PROCEEDING AND ADMINISTRATIVELY 9 v. CLOSING CASE

10 RAFAEL CARDENAS, et al., 11 Defendant(s).

12 Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Sonoma County Jail in Santa Rosa, California, has filed 13 a pro se complaint under

alleging that on December 28, 2021 City of Petaluma 14 police officer Rafael Cardenas and police sergeant Parnow unlawfully arrested him and searched 15 and seized evidence from his person and car which now is being unlawfully used against him in 16 pending criminal proceedings in Sonoma County Superior Court. Plaintiff seeks damages and 17 declaratory/injunctive relief. 18 DISCUSSION 19 A. Standard of Review 20 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 21 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 23 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 24 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.”

25 § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 26 Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1990). 27 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 1 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

42, 48 (1988). 3 B. Legal Claims 4 In order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or 5 for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence 6 invalid, a

plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed 7 on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to 8 make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas 9 corpus. Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994). A claim for damages bearing that 10 relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 11 1983. Id. at 487. 12 Heck’s rule for deferred accrual applies only if there is an existing conviction, however. 13 Wallace v. Kato,

(2007). That “an action which would impugn an anticipated 14 future conviction cannot be brought until that conviction occurs and is set aside” goes “well 15 beyond Heck.”

(emphasis in original). Nonetheless, if a plaintiff files a “false arrest 16 claim before he has been convicted (or files any other claim related to rulings that likely will be 17 made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial), it is within the power of the district court, and 18 accords with common practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a 19 criminal case is ended.”

. 20 The court takes judicial notice that state criminal proceedings related to plaintiff’s 21 December 28, 2021 arrest are pending against him in Sonoma County Superior Court. See People 22 v. Soloman, No. SCR-751256-1. Accordingly, a stay of this federal proceeding under the 23 rationale of Wallace is in order. If plaintiff is later convicted, and if the stayed civil suit would 24 impugn that conviction, Heck will require dismissal; otherwise, the case may proceed. Wallace, 25

.1 26 27 1 CONCLUSION 2 Good cause appearing, the instant federal proceeding is STAYED, and the case is 3 || ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. Nothing further will take place in this matter until the state 4 || criminal proceedings against plaintiff come to an end and, within thirty (30) days thereafter, 5 || plaintiff moves to reopen the case, lift the court’s stay, and amend the complaint. 6 The clerk is instructed to administratively close the case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 2 Aka _ CHARLES R. BREYER 10 United States District Judge 1] 12

23

16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 — SSS 28 Calderon v. Ashmus,

(1998).