Aguilera v. Ducart
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:18-cv-03389
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Aguilera v. Ducart, Judge Gilliam reopened the stayed case and set briefing on whether a prior criminal case bars the excessive-force claims.
Angel Aguilera and the defendants in his § 1983 excessive-force case; the case is reopened and the parties must follow the court’s briefing schedule for the anticipated threshold motion.
What happened
Aguilera v. Ducart is a civil-rights case brought by Angel Aguilera, who was incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison and represented himself. He alleges that prison officers Molina and Hendrix used excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The court had paused the case while state criminal proceedings against Aguilera were pending. After Aguilera was sentenced and said he wanted to continue, the court lifted the administrative stay and reopened the case.
The court directed the defendants to file a motion addressing whether the case is barred by a prior criminal conviction, with Aguilera’s opposition and the defendants’ reply due on set schedules. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. stated that the court would address that threshold issue before setting briefing on the merits.
The detailed version
- Aguilera v. Ducart · No. 4:18-cv-03389
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 30, 2022
Background
Angel Aguilera, an incarcerated plaintiff representing himself, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that Pelican Bay State Prison officers T. Molina and Hendrix used excessive force against him, violating the Eighth Amendment. The court had stayed the action on March 1, 2021, while state criminal proceedings against Aguilera were pending. Aguilera was sentenced in those proceedings on March 10, 2022, and informed the court that he wanted to continue this federal case.
Order
The court ordered the clerk to lift the administrative stay and reopen the action. The defendants had informed the court that they intended to seek dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey and on any other grounds appropriate for summary judgment. The court ordered the defendants to file their motion first, allowed Aguilera 28 days to oppose it, and allowed the defendants 14 days to file a reply. The court stated that the motion would be decided without a hearing.
Effect of the ruling
The court did not decide whether Aguilera’s excessive-force claims are barred, and it did not decide the merits of those claims. It identified the potential Heck bar as a threshold issue—an issue to be resolved before the underlying claims—and stated that it would set a schedule for motions addressing the merits only if the case was not barred. The order therefore reopens the case and sets the next briefing process; it does not grant or deny the anticipated dismissal motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.