Floyd v. San Jose Police Department

Opinion

1 2 3 4 7 8 MICHAEL DEVIN FLOYD, Case No. 22-cv-00751-CRB

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 10 v. ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND GRANTING IFP STATUS ON 11 SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et APPEAL al., 12 Defendants. 13 Plaintiff Michael Devin Floyd seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the 14 allegation that San Jose police officers violated his Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, 15 and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they stopped and searched his car, allegedly used 16 excessive force, and arrested him. See FAC (dkt. 14). Based on that incident, Floyd was 17 criminally charged in California court with violation of California Penal Code sections 18 25400(a)(1) (for carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle) and 417(a)(2) (for exhibiting 19 the firearm in the presence of a third party). See RJN (dkt. 36) Ex. A & C; People of the 20 State of California v. Michael Devin Floyd, Felony Complaint, Case No. C2111237. 21 This case was recently related to another action before the undersigned judge. See 22 Dkt. 60; Floyd v. San Jose Police Dept., et. al, No. 22-cv-750-CRB. Prior to relation, 23 Judge Orrick held that Floyd’s “allegations of false and unconstitutional arrest and his 24 challenges to the open-carry laws” would interfere with the pending state criminal 25 proceeding and stayed this case under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). See Order 26 Staying Case (dkt. 56) at 5. Judge Orrick concluded that each of the four Younger factors 27 were met and that the bad-faith exception did not apply. Id. at 5-6. This Court agrees that 1 this is a clear-cut case for Younger abstention. See, e.g., ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. 2 State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 759 (9th Cir. 2014). 3 Floyd now moves for entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) in order to appeal. 4 Mot. for Entry of Judgment (dkt. 59); see Dkt. 62 (similar filing styled as a motion for 5 judgment on the pleadings). He also moves for in forma pauperis status on appeal and for 6 a waiver of PACER fees. IFP Mot. (dkt. 54); PACER Mot. (dkt. 55). 7 The Court DENIES Floyd’s motion for final judgment because a stay order is not a 8 final judgment under Rule 54. Nor is this case the rare sort of stay order that qualifies as 9 “final for purposes of appellate jurisdiction” because it puts the litigant “effectively out of 10 court.” Herrera v. City of Palmdale, 918 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Moses 11 H. Cone Mem’! Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 9 (1983)). Floyd can resume 12 litigating his damages claims as soon as the pending state criminal proceeding has run its 13 course. See Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 969 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc). 14 The Court nonetheless GRANTS Floyd in forma pauperis status on appeal and 15 } GRANTS a waiver of PACER fees should he desire to attempt an interlocutory appeal to 16 the Ninth Circuit. 5 18 Dated: August 4, 2022 a K yr CHARLES R. BREYER 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28