(PC) Watts et al v. Kachalkin et al, No. 2:2023cv01666 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 12/11/2023 GRANTING plaintiffs' 2 , 5 applications to proceed ifp and DIRECTING the Clerk to assign a district judge to this action. IT IS RECOMMENDE D this action be stayed pending the resolution of the state court proceedings against plaintiff Watts and if these recommendations be adopted, plaintiffs be directed to file monthly status updates as to the status of the criminal proceedings. Assigned and referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 JENELLE FLEMING AND CHAD WATTS, Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 v. Case No. 2:23-cv-01666-JDP (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS MAY PROCEED PAST SCREENING, BUT SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING STATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS MICHAEL KACHALKIN, et al., ECF No. 1 Defendants. 17 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 18 ECF Nos. 2 & 5 16 19 20 21 Plaintiffs allege that defendants Kachalkin and Gibson, officers with the Stockton Police 22 Department, violated their constitutional rights. ECF No. 1. Having reviewed the complaint, I 23 find that it contains two separate constitutional claims, only one of which is suitable to proceed. 24 Defendant Watts alleges that defendants violated his rights by using excessive force against him 25 during his arrest. Id. at 6, 9. Defendant Fleming alleges that the officers violated her First 26 Amendment rights by trying to prevent her from filming her fiancé’s arrest. Id. at 8. Fleming’s 27 claims can proceed, but Watts’ claims, insofar as they appear to implicate ongoing state 28 1 1 proceedings, should be stayed. I will grant plaintiffs’ applications to proceed in forma pauperis. 2 ECF Nos. 2 & 5. 3 Screening Order 4 I. 5 A federal court must screen the complaint filed by any claimant seeking permission to 6 proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable 7 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 8 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 9 immune from such relief. Id. 10 Screening and Pleading Requirements A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 12 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 13 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 14 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 15 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 16 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 17 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 18 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 19 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 20 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 21 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 22 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 23 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 24 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 25 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 26 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 27 28 2 1 2 3 II. Analysis 4 Plaintiffs allege two separate constitutional violations. Plaintiff Watts alleges that 5 defendants used excessive force against him during his arrest. ECF No. 1 at 6, 9. He also notes, 6 however, that he is facing charges for resisting arrest and argues that those charges should be 7 dropped. Id. at 9. These excessive force claims will necessarily examine the same facts as the 8 state court criminal allegations, involve the same witnesses, and potentially implicate plaintiff’s 9 Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Accordingly, I find that these claims should be 10 stayed pending disposition of the state court criminal proceedings. See Martin v. Gutierrez, No. 11 1:22-cv-00600-ADA-BAM (PC), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62484, *1 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12 62484, *4 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2023) (“When a civil plaintiff brings claims under § 1983 that are 13 related to rulings that will likely be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial, it is common 14 practice for the court to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal 15 case is ended.”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 16 (2007)). By contrast, whether defendants violated plaintiff Fleming’s First Amendment rights 17 18 when they prevented her from filming the arrest does not necessarily have any issues that overlap 19 with a consideration of the resisting arrest charges. See Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 20 439 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing a “First Amendment right to film matters of public interest.”). 21 Thus, her claims may proceed. However, rather than have two sets of claims proceeding at 22 different paces in the same case, potentially resulting in two rounds of discovery and dispositive 23 motion practice, I recommend that the entire action be stayed pending resolution of the state 24 charges against Watts. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (“The District Court has 25 broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.”). 26 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: Plaintiffs’ applications to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF Nos. 2 & 5, are GRANTED.4 27 1. 28 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action. 3 1 2 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 3 1. This action be stayed pending the resolution of the state court proceedings against 4 plaintiff Watts. 5 2. If these recommendations be adopted, plaintiffs be directed to file monthly status 6 updates as to the status of the criminal proceedings. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 9 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 10 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 11 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 12 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 13 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 14 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 15 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: 19 20 December 11, 2023 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.