Burdge v. City of Boise

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF IDAHO
CHRISTOPHER BURDGE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF BOISE,
Defendant.
Case No.: 1:25-cv-00371-REP
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT CITY OF
BOISE’S MOTION TO STAY
(Dkt. 12)
Pending before the Court is Defendant City of Boise’s Motion to Stay (Dkt. 12). Having
reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that the facts and legal
arguments are adequately presented and that oral argument would not significantly aid the
decisional process. See Dist. of Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1)(B). For the reasons discussed
below, the Court grants the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Christopher Burdge brings this action pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Defendant City of Boise, alleging violations of his constitutional rights arising out of his arrest
on June 25, 2025. See generally Compl. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff asserts claims for false arrest, false
imprisonment, and related due process violations, contending that Boise police officers lacked
lawful authority to arrest him and that the arrest was part of a broader scheme to deprive him of
property he claims to possess through adverse possession. See id.
The arrest at issue resulted in a pending state criminal prosecution in Ada County
Magistrate Court, Case No. CR01-25-22390, charging Plaintiff with a misdemeanor offense
under Idaho Code § 18-7004 (“firing timber or prairie lands”). That criminal case remains active
and unresolved. Shortly after his arrest, Plaintiff initiated this civil action seeking $5 million in
Case 1:25-cv-00371-REP Document 28 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 4

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
compensatory damages, including damages for emotional distress and unjust incarceration, as
well as additional relief premised on the alleged unlawfulness of the arrest and prosecution.
Defendant City of Boise moves to stay this action pending resolution of Plaintiff’s state
criminal case, arguing that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, if allowed to proceed now, would
necessarily implicate the validity of the pending criminal prosecution and risk running afoul of
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007). See
generally Mem. ISO Mot. to Stay (Dkt. 12-1). Plaintiff opposes the motion, asserting that the
criminal case lacks merit and will be dismissed, and contending that a stay would improperly
delay adjudication of his civil claims. See generally Resp. to Mot. to Stay (Dkt. 13).
II. ANALYSIS
In Heck v. Humphrey, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff may not recover damages
under § 1983 for allegedly unconstitutional conduct if a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor would
necessarily imply the invalidity of a criminal conviction or sentence, unless that conviction or
sentence has already been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. While Heck directly
addresses claims brought after a conviction, the Supreme Court subsequently clarified in Wallace
v. Kato that when a plaintiff brings a civil action related to an arrest or prosecution while
criminal proceedings are still pending, the appropriate course is often to stay the civil case until
the criminal matter is resolved. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393-94.
District courts within the Ninth Circuit have consistently applied this framework. For
example, in Gates v. Sergent, the court stayed a § 1983 action alleging false arrest and related
claims where the plaintiff’s criminal prosecution was ongoing, explaining that allowing the civil
case to proceed would risk inconsistent determinations and would prematurely test issues central
to the criminal case. See Gates, 2024 WL 2117031, at *1-3 (E.D. Cal. 2024). The court
emphasized that a stay preserves judicial economy and protects the plaintiff’s ability to proceed
Case 1:25-cv-00371-REP Document 28 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 4

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
should the criminal case resolve in his favor. See id. (considering the plaintiff’s Fifth
Amendment rights, prejudice to plaintiff, burden on defendants, judicial efficiency, interests of
third parties, and the public interest). Similarly, in Adeyinka v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., the court
stayed civil claims arising from an arrest while criminal charges were pending, reasoning that
resolution of the criminal case would materially affect the viability of plaintiff’s civil claims and
that proceeding concurrently would undermine the principles articulated in Heck. See Adeyinka,
2025 WL 992047, at *3-4 (D. Or. 2025) (“After all, if the plaintiff is ultimately convicted, and if
the stayed civil suit would impugn that conviction, Heck will require dismissal; otherwise, the
civil action will proceed, absent some other bar to suit.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The same considerations apply here. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are premised on the
alleged unlawfulness of his arrest and the absence of probable cause. Those interests are directly
intertwined with the pending state criminal prosecution. If Plaintiff were convicted, a judgment
in his favor in this civil action would necessarily call the conviction into question, triggering the
bar described in Heck. Conversely, if the criminal case resolves in Plaintiff’s favor, the stay
ensures that his civil claims may proceed without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s arguments that the criminal case lacks merit, will be dismissed, or is motivated
by improper purposes do not alter the analysis. As courts have repeatedly recognized, federal
courts should not adjudicate civil claims in a manner that would interfere with or preempt
determinations reserved for the criminal proceeding itself. Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393-94.
A stay also serves important interests of judicial economy and comity. Proceeding with
discovery and merits litigation in this case (including Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. 18) (but see infra) would risk inconsistent rulings, unnecessary expenditure of
judicial resources, and potential interference with the ongoing state prosecution. A stay avoids
these concerns while preserving Plaintiff’s ability to pursue his civil claims until appropriate.
Case 1:25-cv-00371-REP Document 28 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 4

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
Accordingly, consistent with Heck, a stay of this action pending resolution of Plaintiff’s
state criminal case is warranted. The Motion to Stay is granted.
II. ORDER
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City of Boise’s
Motion to Stay (Dkt. 12) is GRANTED. This action is STAYED pending resolution of
Plaintiff’s criminal case in state court.
IT IS ADDITIONALLY HEREBY ORDERED that, in light of the stay, Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 18) is DENIED, without prejudice. In the event the stay is
lifted and this action is not dismissed, Plaintiff may renew his argument presented therein,
consistent with the deadlines contained within a Court-issued Scheduling Order.
DATED: January 23, 2026
________________________
Honorable Raymond E. Patricco
Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00371-REP Document 28 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 4