From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peyton v. Burdick

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 16, 2009
358 F. App'x 961 (9th Cir. 2009)

Summary

vacating judgment in a § 1983 case where claims implicated rulings likely to be made in pending state court criminal proceedings and remanding for district court to stay action until pending state court proceedings concluded

Summary of this case from Gay v. Superior Court

Opinion

No. 08-16241.

Submitted November 17, 2009.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed December 16, 2009.

Aurelius Augustinus Kenn Peyton, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.

Virginia Anne Gennaro, Esquire, Chief Counsel, City Attorney, City of Bakersfield, Bakersfield, CA, Michael E. Lehman, Esquire, Michael George Marderosian, Marderosian, Runyon, Cercone, Lehman Armo, Fresno, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00453-LJO-TAG.

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Aurelius Augustinus Kenneth Peyton, a pre-trial detainee, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging manipulation of evidence, perjury, and false arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

Because Peyton's claims implicate rulings that are likely to be made in the pending state court criminal proceeding, see Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-90, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), the district court should have stayed the section 1983 action "until the criminal case . . . is ended," Wallace v. Koto, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007). Therefore we vacate the judgment and remand for the district court to stay the action until the criminal proceedings are concluded.

Appellees' motion to strike the reply brief in its entirety is granted and their motion to strike portions of the reply brief is denied as moot. Appellees' shall bear appellant's costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.


Summaries of

Peyton v. Burdick

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 16, 2009
358 F. App'x 961 (9th Cir. 2009)

vacating judgment in a § 1983 case where claims implicated rulings likely to be made in pending state court criminal proceedings and remanding for district court to stay action until pending state court proceedings concluded

Summary of this case from Gay v. Superior Court

vacating judgment in a § 1983 case where claims implicated rulings likely to be made in pending state court criminal proceedings and remanding for district court to stay action until pending state court proceedings concluded

Summary of this case from Houston v. Eldridge

vacating judgment in a § 1983 case where claims implicated rulings likely to be made in pending state court criminal proceedings and remanding for district court to stay action until pending state court proceedings concluded

Summary of this case from Britton v. Cal. Superior Court

vacating judgment in § 1983 case where claims implicated rulings likely to be made in pending state court criminal proceeding and remanding for district court to stay action until pending state court proceedings concluded

Summary of this case from Hamilton v. Bosenko

vacating judgment in § 1983 case where claims implicated rulings likely to be made in pending state court criminal proceeding and remanding for district court to stay action until pending state court proceedings concluded

Summary of this case from Hamilton v. Shasta Cnty.

vacating judgment in § 1983 case where claims implicated rulings likely to be made in pending state court criminal proceeding and remanding for district court to stay action until pending state court proceedings concluded

Summary of this case from Hamilton v. Shasta Cnty.

vacating judgment in § 1983 case where claims implicated rulings likely to be made in pending state court criminal proceeding and remanding for district court to stay action until pending state court proceedings concluded

Summary of this case from Hamilton v. Bosenko

vacating judgment in § 1983 case where claims implicated rulings likely to be made in pending state court criminal proceeding and remanding for district court to stay action until pending state court proceedings concluded

Summary of this case from Andrews v. Hawaii Cnty.

staying case where the Section 1983 claims "implicate rulings that are likely to be made in the pending state court criminal proceeding"

Summary of this case from Bernier v. Walker

staying case where the Section 1983 claims "implicate rulings that are likely to be made in the pending state court criminal proceeding"

Summary of this case from White v. Fresno Cnty. Pub. Def.

staying case where the Section 1983 claims "implicate rulings that are likely to be made in the pending state court criminal proceeding"

Summary of this case from Nuno v. Reyes

staying case where the § 1983 claims "implicate rulings that are likely to be made in the pending state court criminal proceeding"

Summary of this case from Martinez v. Cnty. of Santa Clara
Case details for

Peyton v. Burdick

Case Details

Full title:Aurelius Augustinus Kenneth PEYTON, aka Aurelius Augustinus Kenn Peyton…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 16, 2009

Citations

358 F. App'x 961 (9th Cir. 2009)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Beer

(“If a plaintiff files a false-arrest claim before he has been convicted (or files any other claim related to…

White v. Fresno Cnty. Pub. Def.

Id. at 393-94. See also Peyton v. Burdick, 358 F. App'x 961 (9th Cir. 2009) (staying case where the Section…