Cares v. County of San Benito
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:18-cv-07651
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Cares v. Burbank, Judge Gilliam denied deputies’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and administratively closed the case while related criminal charges remain pending.
Thomas Jefferson Cares and defendants Kelly Burbank and Paul Gillies; the civil case was stayed and administratively closed while Cares’s related state criminal case remained pending.
What happened
Thomas Jefferson Cares, representing himself, sued sheriff’s deputies Kelly Burbank and Paul Gillies over his alleged treatment after he was taken to the San Benito County sheriff’s office in December 2016. He alleged wrongful arrest, false reports, denial of medical care, and improper placement on suicide watch. His civil claims included federal and state civil-rights claims, false arrest, and emotional-distress claims.
The court concluded that the civil claims could affect the validity of any eventual criminal conviction, but the criminal case was still pending. Because Cares had not appeared to resolve those charges, the court stayed the civil action and administratively closed the case rather than dismissing the claims at that time.
In Cares v. Burbank, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied Burbank and Gillies’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court said it would reopen the case if the criminal case ended in a way that allowed the civil claims to proceed.
The detailed version
- Cares v. County of San Benito · No. 4:18-cv-07651
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 28, 2020
Background
Thomas Jefferson Cares, proceeding without a lawyer, sued nine defendants based on alleged mistreatment after he became lost in San Benito County in December 2016. According to the complaint, Eric Triolo brought Cares to the county sheriff’s office after accusing him of trespassing and vandalizing a home. Cares alleged that sheriff’s deputies Kelly Burbank and Paul Gillies wrongfully arrested him, refused to provide medical attention, fabricated reports, and placed him on suicide watch even though he was not suicidal.
Cares asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law; California Civil Code § 52.1; and state-law claims for false arrest and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. His related state criminal case remained pending. The opinion states that Cares failed to appear, his bail was forfeited, and a warrant had been issued.
Court’s Analysis
The court discussed the rule from Heck v. Humphrey: a person generally cannot recover damages through a § 1983 claim when winning the civil case would necessarily show that a criminal conviction or sentence is invalid, unless that conviction or sentence has already been overturned or otherwise invalidated. The court also relied on the rule that a civil case involving an arrest or related issues may be stayed while a connected criminal case is pending.
The court determined that a favorable judgment on Cares’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of any eventual conviction on the pending criminal charges. Because the criminal case had not been resolved, the claims were not yet barred under Heck. Instead, the court stayed the civil action. It administratively closed the case because Cares’s continuing failure to appear made it impossible to know when or how the criminal case would be resolved.
Disposition
The court DENIED Defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and directed the Clerk to administratively close the file. The court stated that it would reopen the matter if and when the criminal case was resolved in a way that allowed the civil claims to proceed under the rule discussed in Heck.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.