 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bunnell v. Department of Corrections6/22/1998
nment from filing a forfeiture claim during the course of criminal proceedings, the government's argument is misdirected. This claimant is not requesting dismissal because of a denial of due process like the claimant in United States v. [$8,850], [supra], 461 U.S. 555, . . . 76 L.Ed.2d 143 (1983)[.] his claimant is requesting dismissal because the government is out of time. This Court is unaware of any legal authority precluding the government from filing a forfeiture claim during a criminal proceeding and requesting a stay until the criminal proceeding is concluded." (U.S. v. $116,000 in U.S. Currency, supra, 721 F.Supp. at p. 704.)
Here, we are unaware of any legal authority precluding plaintiff from filing his federal claim while the criminal case was pending.
With respect to consideration of criminal proceedings in civil cases, we also are aware of authority in the context of 42 United States Code section 1983 claims that a plaintiff seeking damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harms caused by unlawful actions that would render a conviction or sentence invalid, has no claim under 42 United States Code section 1983 until the conviction or sentence is reversed. (Heck v. Humphrey (1994) 512 U.S. 477 [129 L.Ed.2d 383].) However, this accrual issue does not present itself in this case, and plaintiff does not argue that it does.
Nor does this case present any issue of federal court proceedings interfering with state courts when state criminal proceedings are involved. (See generally, Younger v. Harris (1971) 401 U.S. 37 [27 L.Ed.2d 669].)
We also have no occasion in this appeal to consider or decide whether a timely-filed civil complaint could be stayed pending completion of criminal proceedings. (See e.g., Johnson v. Railway Express Agency (1975) 421 U.S. 454, 465 [44 L.Ed.2d 295, 304] [holding that timely filing of administrative complaint alleging racial discrimination under Title VII (42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e) did not toll limitations period for racial discrimination action based on same facts filed in federal court under 42 United States Code section 1981 (which had no federal statute of limitations), and suggesting a plaintiff could timely file 42 United States Code section 1981 lawsuit and ask trial court to stay proceedings pending completion of administrative proceedings].) Here, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his prior lawsuit rather than request a stay of proceedings.
We conclude the federal two-year statute of limitations applies to this case and was not tolled by the pendency of criminal proceedings in state court. Since the complaint which is the subject of this appeal was filed more than two years after commencement of the applicable two-year federal limitations period, the action is barred.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed. CDC shall recover its costs on appeal.
(CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION.)
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|