Aguilera v. Ducart

District Court, N.D. California·Decided March 30, 2022·No. 4:18-cv-03389·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANGEL AGUILERA, Case No. 18-cv-03389-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER LIFTING STAY; REOPENING CASE; SETTING BRIEFING 9 v. SCHEDULE

10 T. MOLINA, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate housed at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), filed this pro se action 14 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that PBSP officers Molina and Hendrix used excessive 15 force on him, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Dkt. Nos., 38, 43, 54. On March 1, 2021, 16 the Court stayed this case pending resolution of state court criminal proceedings against Plaintiff, 17 specifically People v. Aguilera, Del Norte Cty. Sup. Ct. Case No. DNSU-CRPB-2020-5019-1 18 (“Aguilera I”). Dkt. No. 67. On March 10, 2022, Plaintiff was sentenced in Aguilera I. Dkt. No. 19 71. Plaintiff has informed the Court that he wishes to continue with this action, Dkt. No. 72, and 20 Defendants have informed the Court that they intend to seek dismissal of this action pursuant to 21 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), as well as any other grounds appropriate for 22 summary judgment, Dkt. No. 71. 23 In light of the foregoing, the Court orders as follows. 24 1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to LIFT the administrative stay and REOPEN 25 this action. 26 2. Whether this action is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), is a 27 threshold issue that should be determined before proceeding to the merits of this action. 1 this action pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). Plaintiff's opposition shall 2 || be filed and served no later than twenty-eight (28) days after the date Defendants’ motion is filed. 3 || Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after Plaintiffs opposition 1s 4 || filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will 5 be held on this motion. If the Court finds that this action is not barred by Heck, the Court will set 6 a briefing schedule for dispositive motions addressing the merits of this case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: 3/20/20222 ° navwoeo S. GILLIAM, JR. □ 10 United States District Judge 11 12

15 16

= 17

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Aguilera v. Ducart, (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Aguilera v. Ducart (Aguilera v. Ducart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Heck v. Humphrey
512 U.S. 477 (Supreme Court, 1994)