Civil Rights — unreasonable searches

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Civil Rights — unreasonable searches

Where a criminal case is still pending against the plaintiff in state court, the district court should have stayed his civil rights claim alleging illegal searches.

“It is Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), with which we must be concerned. Younger holds that federal courts must abstain from taking jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims that may interfere with ongoing state proceedings. See SKS & Assocs., Inc. v. Dart, 619 F.3d 674, 677 (7th Cir. 2010). Gakuba’s claims of damages resulting from illegal searches, seizures, and detentions meet that description: they involve constitutional issues that may be litigated during the course of his criminal case, see Simpson v. Rowan, 73 F.3d 134, 138 (7th Cir. 1995); Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 968 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Carroll v. City of Mount Clemens, 139 F.3d 1072, 1075 (6th Cir. 1998). Deciding those issues in federal court could undermine the state court proceeding, see Simpson, 73 F.3d at 138. Because monetary relief is not available to him in his defense of criminal charges, however, and because his claims may become time-barred by the time the state prosecution has concluded, the district court should have stayed rather than dismissed Gakuba’s civil-rights claims. See Simpson, 73 F.3d at 138-39; see also Green v. Benden, 281 F.3d 661, 667 (7th Cir. 2002); D.L. v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 497, 392 F.3d 1223, 1228 (10th Cir. 2004); Habich v. City of Dearborn, 331 F.3d 524, 533 n.4 (6th Cir. 2003).”

Vacated and Remanded.

12-3345 Gakuba v. O’Brien

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Castillo, J., Wood, J.