Floyd v. San Jose Police Department
- Charles Breyer
- 3:22-cv-00751
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Floyd v. San Jose Police Department, Judge Breyer denied final judgment but granted appeal-related fee waivers while the state criminal case remained pending.
Michael Devin Floyd’s federal damages case remains stayed while the related California criminal proceeding is pending; the order also affects his ability to pursue an appeal and access PACER without the specified fees.
What happened
In Floyd v. San Jose Police Department, Michael Devin Floyd seeks damages under a federal civil-rights law, alleging San Jose police officers violated his constitutional rights during a traffic stop, search, use of force, and arrest. A California criminal case based on the same incident was still pending, so the federal case had been stayed.
Floyd asked the court to enter final judgment so he could appeal. He also requested permission to proceed without paying certain appeal costs and a waiver of fees for accessing federal court records. The court denied the request for final judgment because a stay is not a final judgment, but granted permission to proceed without paying those appeal costs and granted the PACER-fee waiver for a possible appeal before final judgment.
Judge Charles R. Breyer agreed that this was a clear case for the rule requiring federal courts to avoid interfering with certain pending state criminal proceedings. The court said Floyd may resume litigating his federal damages claims after the state criminal proceeding ends.
The detailed version
- Floyd v. San Jose Police Department · No. 3:22-cv-00751
- Charles Breyer
- Aug. 4, 2022
Background
Michael Devin Floyd brought claims for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violating constitutional rights. He alleged that San Jose police officers violated his Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they stopped and searched his car, allegedly used excessive force, and arrested him.
The same incident led to criminal charges against Floyd in California court for carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle and exhibiting a firearm in the presence of a third party. Before this order, Judge Orrick stayed the federal case under Younger v. Harris. That doctrine generally requires a federal court to avoid interfering with a qualifying pending state criminal proceeding. Judge Breyer stated that he agreed this was a clear case for that form of abstention and that the earlier court had correctly found the relevant factors satisfied.
Motions and Rulings
Floyd moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) for entry of final judgment so that he could appeal. He also moved for permission to proceed without paying certain court costs on appeal and for a waiver of PACER fees, which are fees for accessing federal court records.
The court denied Floyd’s motion for final judgment. It held that the stay order was not a final judgment under Rule 54(b). The court also held that this was not the rare type of stay order treated as final for appellate-jurisdiction purposes because it did not leave Floyd effectively out of court. The court explained that Floyd could resume litigating his damages claims after the pending state criminal proceeding had run its course.
The court granted Floyd’s request for permission to proceed without paying the applicable appeal costs. It also granted his request for a PACER-fee waiver if he chose to attempt an appeal before final judgment. The order did not decide the merits of Floyd’s constitutional claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.