1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Edward Jones, Case No.: 2:23-cv-02100-JAD-MDC
4 Plaintiff
5 v. Order Vacating Order Dismissing Action, Rejecting Magistrate Judge’s Report and 6 Daryl Morgan, et al., Recommendation, and Staying Case
7 Defendants
9 Clark County Detention Center detainee Edward Jones filed this civil-rights lawsuit 10 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events surrounding his arrest, search, seizure, and ongoing state-court 11 prosecution.1 The magistrate judge screened Jones’s claims and found that they are barred by 12 the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey,2 so he recommended 13 dismissal.3 Any objection to that recommendation was due by March 25, 2024, and when none 14 was received by that date, I adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed and 15 closed this case.4 16 Jones’s objection hit the docket two days later, and Jones appealed my dismissal order,5 17 so I issued an indicative ruling informing the Ninth Circuit that, if it remanded this case, I would 18 vacate my prior order and consider Jones’s objections.6 The Ninth Circuit has since remanded 19
20 1 ECF No. 1-1. 21 2 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1944). 3 ECF No. 7. 22 4 ECF No. 8. 23 5 ECF Nos. 11, 12. 6 ECF No. 15. 1 “under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1 to allow the court to vacate its order and 2 judgment of March 28, 2024, and consider appellant’s objections.”7 So I now vacate my prior 3 order and review Jones’s objections. Having done so, I reject the magistrate judge’s 4 recommendation to dismiss under Heck and instead issue a stay under Younger v. Harris.8 I do
5 so because a prerequisite to a Heck dismissal is a state-court conviction, which hasn’t happened 6 to Jones yet as he’s still awaiting trial on the charges he mentions in his complaint. So the better 7 fit is the Supreme Court’s decision in Younger, which prohibits federal courts from interfering in 8 ongoing state criminal proceedings like Jones’s. So I stay this lawsuit pending the resolution of 9 Jones’s criminal prosecution. 10 Discussion 11 When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on a dispositive 12 issue, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the challenged findings and 13 recommendations.9 The district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 14 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge,” “receive further evidence,” or
15 “recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”10 16 In his complaint, Jones alleges that he was “illegally arrested and detained in [his] home” 17 by Metro officers, who then searched his home without a warrant.11 He claims that he was 18 “charged with open murder” after his illegal arrest and that one of the defendants later returned 19
20 7 ECF No. 17 at 1. 8 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53–54 (1971). 21 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Local Rule IB 3-2(b) (requiring a district judge 22 to review de novo only the portions of a report and recommendation addressing a case- dispositive issue that a party objects to). 23 10 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 11 ECF No. 1-1 at 2–3. 1 to his home to seize his mail without a warrant.12 Jones asserts two search-and-seizure claims— 2 one for the initial arrest and search, and the second for the search of his mail—and a due-process 3 claim contending that “no procedures required by law” were followed when the defendants 4 arrested and searched him.13 He seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and compensatory
5 damages.14 6 The magistrate judge recommended that all of Jones’s claims be dismissed as barred by 7 the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck, which prohibits a plaintiff from pursuing § 1983 claims 8 that “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence” unless the plaintiff 9 can establish that “the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.”15 The judge 10 reasoned that all of Jones’s claims imply the invalidity of his conviction stemming from the 11 defendants’ allegedly illegal arrest and searches, and Heck bars the assertion of such claims 12 unless Jones’s conviction were overturned.16 13 Jones objects to those conclusions and argues that he may assert at least his due-process 14 claim regardless of Heck.17 But I don’t reach the merits of that objection because I conclude on
15 de novo review that Heck doesn’t apply to this case. Heck bars a federal civil-rights suit only 16 when a plaintiff has already been convicted; it does not apply to claims filed before a conviction 17 occurs.18 And Jones has not yet been convicted of the charges stemming from his arrest and he 18
12 Id. at 4. 19 13 Id. at 5. 20 14 Id. at 6. 21 15 Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. 16 ECF No. 7. 22 17 ECF No. 11. 23 18 See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 & n.8 (holding that a claim that “will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff” should proceed “in the absence of some other bar to the suit” and providing the example that, “if a state criminal defendant brings a 1 currently awaits trial as a pretrial detainee at Clark County Detention Center.19 So Heck doesn’t 2 yet bar Jones’s claims. 3 Rather, Jones’s pretrial status causes his claims to run into a different legal roadblock: the 4 United States Supreme Court held in Younger that federal courts must abstain from hearing civil-
5 rights lawsuits that invite them to interfere in criminal proceedings pending in state court.20 The 6 relief that Jones seeks in this court—a finding that the arrest and searches that led to his pending 7 state charges were unconstitutional—would directly interfere with proceedings in that state 8 case.21 So this court may hear Jones’s claims only if he can make a “showing of bad faith, 9 harassment, or other extraordinary circumstance” that creates a threat of irreparable injury.22 10 11
12 federal civil-rights lawsuit during the pendency of his criminal trial, appeal, or state habeas action, abstention may be an appropriate response to the parallel state-court proceedings”); see 13 also Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007) (refusing to extend Heck to pre-conviction § 1983 claims, noting that, “if a plaintiff files a false-arrest claim before he has been convicted 14 (or files any other claim related to rulings that will likely be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial), it is within the power of the district court, and in accord with common practice, to 15 stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended”). 19 See Clark County Inmate Search, Defendant ID 8593738, 16 https://www.clarkcountynv.gov/government/departments/detention_center/inmate_search.php; State of Nevada v. Edward Jones, III, Case No. C-22-363709-1 (Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.) (jury trial 17 scheduled for October 7, 2024, on charges of murder, residential burglary, and dissuading a witness from testifying). I take judicial notice of the online docket records of the state district 18 court, which may be accessed by the public online at https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/portal. 19 20 Younger, 401 U.S. at 53–54; see also Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Edward Jones, Case No.: 2:23-cv-02100-JAD-MDC
4 Plaintiff
5 v. Order Vacating Order Dismissing Action, Rejecting Magistrate Judge’s Report and 6 Daryl Morgan, et al., Recommendation, and Staying Case
7 Defendants
9 Clark County Detention Center detainee Edward Jones filed this civil-rights lawsuit 10 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events surrounding his arrest, search, seizure, and ongoing state-court 11 prosecution.1 The magistrate judge screened Jones’s claims and found that they are barred by 12 the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey,2 so he recommended 13 dismissal.3 Any objection to that recommendation was due by March 25, 2024, and when none 14 was received by that date, I adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed and 15 closed this case.4 16 Jones’s objection hit the docket two days later, and Jones appealed my dismissal order,5 17 so I issued an indicative ruling informing the Ninth Circuit that, if it remanded this case, I would 18 vacate my prior order and consider Jones’s objections.6 The Ninth Circuit has since remanded 19
20 1 ECF No. 1-1. 21 2 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1944). 3 ECF No. 7. 22 4 ECF No. 8. 23 5 ECF Nos. 11, 12. 6 ECF No. 15. 1 “under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1 to allow the court to vacate its order and 2 judgment of March 28, 2024, and consider appellant’s objections.”7 So I now vacate my prior 3 order and review Jones’s objections. Having done so, I reject the magistrate judge’s 4 recommendation to dismiss under Heck and instead issue a stay under Younger v. Harris.8 I do
5 so because a prerequisite to a Heck dismissal is a state-court conviction, which hasn’t happened 6 to Jones yet as he’s still awaiting trial on the charges he mentions in his complaint. So the better 7 fit is the Supreme Court’s decision in Younger, which prohibits federal courts from interfering in 8 ongoing state criminal proceedings like Jones’s. So I stay this lawsuit pending the resolution of 9 Jones’s criminal prosecution. 10 Discussion 11 When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on a dispositive 12 issue, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the challenged findings and 13 recommendations.9 The district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 14 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge,” “receive further evidence,” or
15 “recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”10 16 In his complaint, Jones alleges that he was “illegally arrested and detained in [his] home” 17 by Metro officers, who then searched his home without a warrant.11 He claims that he was 18 “charged with open murder” after his illegal arrest and that one of the defendants later returned 19
20 7 ECF No. 17 at 1. 8 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53–54 (1971). 21 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Local Rule IB 3-2(b) (requiring a district judge 22 to review de novo only the portions of a report and recommendation addressing a case- dispositive issue that a party objects to). 23 10 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 11 ECF No. 1-1 at 2–3. 1 to his home to seize his mail without a warrant.12 Jones asserts two search-and-seizure claims— 2 one for the initial arrest and search, and the second for the search of his mail—and a due-process 3 claim contending that “no procedures required by law” were followed when the defendants 4 arrested and searched him.13 He seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and compensatory
5 damages.14 6 The magistrate judge recommended that all of Jones’s claims be dismissed as barred by 7 the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck, which prohibits a plaintiff from pursuing § 1983 claims 8 that “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence” unless the plaintiff 9 can establish that “the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.”15 The judge 10 reasoned that all of Jones’s claims imply the invalidity of his conviction stemming from the 11 defendants’ allegedly illegal arrest and searches, and Heck bars the assertion of such claims 12 unless Jones’s conviction were overturned.16 13 Jones objects to those conclusions and argues that he may assert at least his due-process 14 claim regardless of Heck.17 But I don’t reach the merits of that objection because I conclude on
15 de novo review that Heck doesn’t apply to this case. Heck bars a federal civil-rights suit only 16 when a plaintiff has already been convicted; it does not apply to claims filed before a conviction 17 occurs.18 And Jones has not yet been convicted of the charges stemming from his arrest and he 18
12 Id. at 4. 19 13 Id. at 5. 20 14 Id. at 6. 21 15 Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. 16 ECF No. 7. 22 17 ECF No. 11. 23 18 See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 & n.8 (holding that a claim that “will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff” should proceed “in the absence of some other bar to the suit” and providing the example that, “if a state criminal defendant brings a 1 currently awaits trial as a pretrial detainee at Clark County Detention Center.19 So Heck doesn’t 2 yet bar Jones’s claims. 3 Rather, Jones’s pretrial status causes his claims to run into a different legal roadblock: the 4 United States Supreme Court held in Younger that federal courts must abstain from hearing civil-
5 rights lawsuits that invite them to interfere in criminal proceedings pending in state court.20 The 6 relief that Jones seeks in this court—a finding that the arrest and searches that led to his pending 7 state charges were unconstitutional—would directly interfere with proceedings in that state 8 case.21 So this court may hear Jones’s claims only if he can make a “showing of bad faith, 9 harassment, or other extraordinary circumstance” that creates a threat of irreparable injury.22 10 11
12 federal civil-rights lawsuit during the pendency of his criminal trial, appeal, or state habeas action, abstention may be an appropriate response to the parallel state-court proceedings”); see 13 also Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007) (refusing to extend Heck to pre-conviction § 1983 claims, noting that, “if a plaintiff files a false-arrest claim before he has been convicted 14 (or files any other claim related to rulings that will likely be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial), it is within the power of the district court, and in accord with common practice, to 15 stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended”). 19 See Clark County Inmate Search, Defendant ID 8593738, 16 https://www.clarkcountynv.gov/government/departments/detention_center/inmate_search.php; State of Nevada v. Edward Jones, III, Case No. C-22-363709-1 (Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.) (jury trial 17 scheduled for October 7, 2024, on charges of murder, residential burglary, and dissuading a witness from testifying). I take judicial notice of the online docket records of the state district 18 court, which may be accessed by the public online at https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/portal. 19 20 Younger, 401 U.S. at 53–54; see also Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72 (2013) (clarifying that “federal-court abstention is required . . . when there is a parallel, pending state 20 criminal proceeding” (emphasis added)); Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004) (federal courts generally abstain from granting any relief that would interfere with pending state 21 judicial proceedings). 21 See Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 84–85 (1971) (noting that “the propriety of arrests and the 22 admissibility of evidence in state criminal proceedings are ordinarily matters to be resolved by state tribunals” and are only subject to federal-court review on appeal to the United States 23 Supreme Court or through a federal habeas petition). 22 Page v. King, 932 F.3d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Younger, 401 U.S. at 54. 1 Injuries are only irreparable if the threat to a plaintiff’s federally protected rights cannot be 2 eliminated through his defense of the criminal case.23 3 Jones’s case does not present extraordinary circumstances. Defendants in state criminal 4 proceedings routinely allege that some aspect of their arrest, detention, or prosecution violates
5 their constitutional rights, which makes this a regular occurrence, not an extraordinary 6 circumstance. And motions or other developments in Jones’s still-pending criminal matter may 7 ameliorate any threat to his federally protected rights. He thus faces no extraordinary or 8 irreparable injuries, so federal abstention is required and this case cannot proceed while Jones’s 9 state court case is pending. 10 Normally, when applying Younger, claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are 11 dismissed without prejudice, while claims for damages are stayed pending resolution of the 12 underlying state-court proceeding.24 So I dismiss Jones’s requests for declaratory and injunctive 13 relief, but because he also seeks compensatory damages for each of his claims, I stay that portion 14 of the case pending resolution of his parallel criminal proceedings.
15 Conclusion 16 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the court’s prior order dismissing this case [ECF 17 No. 8] is VACATED, mooting Jones’s appeal in case no. 24-2271, and this case is RE- 18 OPENED. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 20 [ECF No. 7] is REJECTED because Jones’s claims, brought while his state-court criminal case 21 is still pending, are not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1944). 22
23 23 Younger, 401 U.S. at 46. 24 Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 979–82. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this court abstains from interfering in Jones’s still- 2|| pending state criminal proceedings under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and thus 3} DISMISSES Jones’s claims to the extent that they seek declaratory or injunctive relief declaring any arrests or searches that relate to his pending state proceedings invalid. To the extent that Jones’s complaint seeks compensatory damages for the constitutional violations he alleges, this case is STAYED pending the resolution of Jones’s state case. If Jones wishes to pursue his 7|| claims after his state criminal proceedings have concluded, he may move for this court to lift the stay. 9 The Clerk of Court is directed to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE THIS CASE and 10||SEND a copy of this order to the Clerk of Court for the United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, re: case no. 24-2271. 12
US. DisizictJudge J baniler A. Dorsey 14 May 20, 2024 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23