1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 RODRIC P. STANLEY, Case No. 23-cv-00798-JD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER REOPENING CASE; STAYING 8 v. PROCEEDINGS AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE 9 CHRISTOPHER KIDD, CASE 10 Defendant.

11 12 Plaintiff, a detainee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under

. The 13 original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and the case was dismissed without 14 prejudice when plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has filed an amended 15 complaint and seeks to reopen the case. 16 DISCUSSION 17 STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 19 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 21 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 23 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th 24 Cir. 1990). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 26 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 27 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 1 cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 2 the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) (citations 3 omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 4 face.”

. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 5 standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 6 must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 7 should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 8 to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). 9 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 10 the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 11 committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

(1988). 12 LEGAL CLAIMS 13 Plaintiff alleges that his phone was illegally searched during his arrest. He seeks money 14 damages from the detective who was involved. To recover damages for an allegedly 15 unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose 16 unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove 17 that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, 18 declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question 19 by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey,

, 486- 20 487 (1994). Consequently, such a claim for damages, that is, one bearing such a relationship to a 21 conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated, is not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487. 22 In a different context, in Wallace v. Kato,

(2007), the Court held that the 23 “Heck rule for deferred accrual [of the statute of limitations] is called into play only when there 24 exists ‘a conviction or sentence that has not been . . . invalidated,’ that is to say, an ‘outstanding 25 criminal judgment.’”

at 391-93 (quoting Heck,

). The Heck rule delays 26 accrual of the limitations period only if there is an existing conviction on the date the statute of 27 limitations begins to run, which in the case of wrongful arrest or wrongful imprisonment claims is 1 confinement pursuant to legal process, for example, when he or she is bound over by a judge or 2 arraigned on charges. Id. at 389-90. Although the court was considering only when the statute of 3 limitations began running on a false arrest or false imprisonment claim, the discussion quoted 4 suggests that Heck does not apply if there is no extant conviction – for instance, if a plaintiff has 5 only been arrested or charged. 6 If a plaintiff files a § 1983 false arrest claim before he or she is convicted, or files any other 7 claim related to rulings that likely will be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial, it is 8 within the power of the district court, and accords with common practice, to stay the civil action 9 until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended. Id. at 393-94. If the plaintiff 10 is thereafter convicted, and if the stayed civil suit would impugn that conviction, Heck requires 11 dismissal; otherwise, the case may proceed. Id. at 394. 12 Section 1983 does not contain its own limitations period. The appropriate period is that of 13 the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury torts. See Wilson v. Garcia,

261, 276 (1985), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & 15 Sons Co.,

(2004); TwoRivers v. Lewis,

(9th Cir. 1999). In 16 California, the general residual statute of limitations for personal injury actions is the two-year 17 period set forth at California Civil Procedure Code § 335.1 and is the applicable statute in § 1983 18 actions.1 See Maldonado v. Harris,

(9th Cir. 2004). 19 Plaintiff states that he was arrested, and his phone was illegally searched on September 25, 20 2018, by the defendant detective. Plaintiff is in custody awaiting trial for this this search and 21 arrest. Plaintiff cannot obtain money damages unless the charges are dismissed, or the criminal 22 case concludes with a finding of not guilty. The case is stayed pending the outcome of the 23 criminal proceeding. If plaintiff is found not guilty or the charges are dismissed, he still must 24 address the statute of limitations issue because this case was filed more than four years after the 25

26 1 California Civil Procedure Code section 352.1 recognizes imprisonment as a disability that tolls the statute of limitations when a person is “imprisoned on a criminal charge, or in execution under 27 the sentence of a criminal court for a term of less than for life.”

(a). 1 search. 2 CONCLUSION 3 The request to reopen and amend is granted and the case is reopened. For the foregoing 4 || reasons, this action is stayed and administratively closed. Within twenty-eight (28) days of the 5 date on which he is acquitted, convicted, or charges are dismissed, plaintiff must file a motion to 6 || lift the stay. If plaintiff is convicted and if the claim would impugn that conviction, the action will 7 be dismissed; otherwise, his claim may then proceed. In light of the stay, plaintiff should not file 8 any more documents in this action until the criminal proceedings have concluded. The Clerk is 9 || requested to administratively close the case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: August 14, 2023 12

13 4 JAMES TO 5 United Stftes District Judge 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28