(PS) Gibbs v. Boyd et al, No. 2:2013cv02631 - Document 96 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/1/2018 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 86 the amended Findings and Recommendations are NOT ADOPTED 43 the parties shall file supplemental briefing not to exceed 10 pages within 14 days. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
(PS) Gibbs v. Boyd et al Doc. 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT ALAN GIBBS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:13-CV-2631-KJM-DMC v. ORDER BOYD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. The matter was 18 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of California local 20 rules. 21 On December 18, 2015, Brian Boyd and DeWayne Little (“Defendants”) officers 22 with the Department of Fish and Wildlife (“DFW”) filed a motion for summary judgement. ECF 23 No. 43 at 7. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. On September 9, 2016, the magistrate judge filed 24 findings and recommendations. ECF No. 67 at 9. On September 30, 2016 this court declined to 25 adopt the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 73 at 2. The court was concerned there may 26 be “a triable issue over the validity of plaintiff’s arrest warrant and the reasonableness of 27 plaintiff’s arrest.” ECF No. 73 at 4. On December 4, 2017 the magistrate judge filed amended 28 findings and recommendations recommending that the court grant defendants’ motion for 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 summary judgment in full. ECF No. 86. Plaintiff filed timely objections. ECF No. 88. On 2 December 20, 2017, defendants filed a response to plaintiff’s objections. ECF No. 92. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 4 304(f), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. After a review of the file, it is 5 unclear to the court whether plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is cognizable given the pending state court 6 actions outlined in the Declaration of Brian Boyd in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. 7 ECF No. 44 at 4-6 (“Based on the violations that I found . . . . Shasta County is prosecuting these 8 criminal misdemeanor charges against Plaintiff in a pending State Court action entitled People v. 9 Gibbs, Case Number MCRDCR-M-13-0004757-002.”). The Supreme Court held in Heck v. 10 Humphrey, that “in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or 11 imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction 12 or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been 13 reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid . . . or called into 14 question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) 15 (citation omitted). Neither party has adequately addressed this issue in their briefings, and more 16 information is required for the court to render a decision on defendants’ pending motion for 17 summary judgment. 18 The parties are DIRECTED to file supplemental briefing that addresses at a 19 minimum (1) whether a state criminal case arose from the search and arrest challenged in this 20 matter, (2) the status of that state case, (3) the outcome of that case, if it has been adjudicated, and 21 (4) the applicability of Heck v. Humphrey to plaintiff’s § 1983 claim in light of any state case. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. The amended findings and recommendations filed Dec. 4, 2017 are not adopted. 24 2. The parties shall file supplemental briefing not to exceed ten (10) pages within 25 26 fourteen (14) days. DATED: October 1, 2018. 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 2
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.