Aguilera v. Ducart

Background

Angel Aguilera filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute that allows claims for constitutional violations by state actors. His amended complaint alleged that T. Molina authorized the use of deadly force during a May 24, 2017, prison riot without requiring officials to determine whether inmates posed a threat, and that Hendrix shot Aguilera in the face even though Aguilera posed no threat. Aguilera alleged that the shooting violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive force. He sought litigation costs, $5 million in compensatory damages, $5 million in punitive damages, and lifelong free healthcare and medical insurance.

The state criminal case, identified in the opinion as Aguilera I, concerned Aguilera’s alleged participation in the same riot. The charges included eight counts of assault and one count of inciting a riot. The opinion described testimony that inmates were attacking officers, that officers believed there was a significant risk of death, and that Hendrix said he fired one shot at the group attacking Sergeant Mount to defend Mount. The opinion also described a state judge’s statement that video showed Aguilera participating in the fight when he was shot.

Motion to Compel

Aguilera asked the court to compel responses to one request for admission and three interrogatories. Defendants Molina and Hendrix opposed the motion, arguing in part that Aguilera had not complied with the meet-and-confer requirement in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and the Northern District of California’s Local Rule 37-1(a).

The court explained that a motion to compel discovery must include a certification that the moving party made a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute without court action. Aguilera’s January 21, 2020, notice was served at the same time as his discovery requests, and the court found that he had not met and conferred with defendants after serving those requests. The court therefore denied Aguilera’s motion to compel without prejudice to refiling after the required good-faith efforts and certification.

Motion to Stay

Defendants asked the court to stay, or pause, the federal case until the state criminal case ended. They argued that a conviction could bar Aguilera’s excessive-force claims under Heck v. Humphrey, that a stay was warranted under the rule generally limiting federal interference with ongoing state criminal proceedings, and that a stay would promote judicial economy. The court agreed that Heck could bar Aguilera’s claims if he were convicted, and that judicial economy supported a stay. The court expressly declined to decide whether the stay was also appropriate under the federal abstention doctrine cited by defendants.

Under Heck, a prisoner generally cannot obtain damages under § 1983 when success would necessarily imply that an outstanding criminal conviction or sentence is invalid, unless that conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. The court reasoned that a judgment for Aguilera could conflict with facts supporting a conviction, including whether deadly force was needed and whether Hendrix shot Aguilera while defending Sergeant Mount from an assault. Although claims barred by Heck are generally dismissed rather than stayed, the court found a stay appropriate because the state criminal case had only recently begun and had not produced any convictions.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to compel without prejudice and granted the defendants’ motion to stay. It stayed the case pending resolution of the criminal charges and directed the clerk to administratively close it. Within 30 days after the criminal charges were resolved, Aguilera was required to file a status report stating whether he wished to continue the federal case, and defendants were required to report whether they would seek dismissal. The court warned that failure to meet those deadlines might result in dismissal. It also ordered defendants to file status reports every six months about the state criminal case.