Futch v. Lemus
- Edward Chen
- 3:19-cv-02981
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Futch v. Lemus, Judge Chen granted the defendants’ motion to stay the civil-rights case and ordered it administratively closed.
The order affects Leothurs Futch and the defendants in his civil-rights action by pausing and administratively closing the case while Futch’s related state criminal proceedings remain pending.
What happened
In Futch v. Lemus, Leothurs Futch alleges that Richmond Police Department officers used excessive force when they arrested him on December 6, 2018. He brought the case under a federal civil-rights law while criminal charges arising from the same incident remained pending in state court.
The defendants asked the court to pause the civil case because a future criminal conviction could affect whether Futch’s civil-rights claims could proceed. Futch opposed the request and argued that he was injured regardless of the criminal case.
The court granted the stay, stayed the action, and ordered the Clerk to administratively close it until the state criminal case ends. The order did not decide whether Futch’s excessive-force claims were valid; Judge Chen explained that Futch must ask to lift the stay within 30 days after the criminal proceedings conclude.
The detailed version
- Futch v. Lemus · No. 3:19-cv-02981
- Edward Chen
- Dec. 20, 2019
Background
Leothurs Futch, proceeding without a lawyer and identified as a pretrial detainee, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that Richmond Police Department officers used excessive force during his arrest on December 6, 2018. The defendants moved to stay the action, and Futch opposed the motion.
A state criminal case was pending against Futch based on the same incident. The charges listed in the felony information included battery with injury on a peace officer, three counts of resisting an executive officer, resisting a peace officer resulting in serious bodily injury, and battery with serious bodily injury. Three alleged victims in that criminal case were defendants in the civil action.
Reason for the Stay
The defendants argued that a future conviction could prevent Futch from pursuing his civil-rights claims under the rule from Heck v. Humphrey. That rule generally bars a damages claim challenging conduct that, if found unlawful, would imply that an existing conviction or sentence is invalid, unless the conviction or sentence has already been overturned or otherwise set aside.
The court explained that when criminal proceedings are still pending and a successful civil-rights claim would call an anticipated conviction into question, the civil case should be stayed rather than dismissed. The court found that Futch’s claims and the criminal charges were interwoven. In particular, success on the excessive-force claims could call into question a future conviction under California Penal Code § 69 because that offense requires proof that the officer was acting lawfully while performing the officer’s duty.
Ruling and Effect
The court granted the defendants’ motion for a stay. It stayed the action and directed the Clerk to administratively close the case. The stay is intended to continue while the state criminal proceedings against Futch are pending.
The court emphasized that the stay was procedural and did not address the merits of Futch’s excessive-force claims. Within 30 days after the state criminal proceedings conclude, such as through a conviction or acquittal, Futch must file a motion asking the court to lift the stay. If the stay is lifted and the court determines that his claims would undermine a conviction, the action will be dismissed under the Heck rule; otherwise, the action may proceed subject to any other applicable bar.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.