RONALD LEWIS BOYER, APPELLANT,
v.
SGT. HERBERT RILEY; SGT. JOHN MORIAROTY; AND SAL CHRUM, OF THE ST. LOUIS POLICE DEPT., HOMICIDE DIVISION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court should not have dismissed the action but should have held it in abeyance pending completion of state proceedings.
Plaintiff, convicted of murder, filed a § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations during interrogation. The district court dismissed the action…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Younger V. Harris Abstention Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ronald Lewis Boyer was convicted in Missouri state court of murder. An appeal from that conviction is pending.
Subsequent to his conviction, Boyer filed an action for actual and punitive damages against three St. Louis police officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the officers had deprived him of his constitutional rights by refusing to permit him to have a lawyer present during an interrogation at which he incriminated himself. He also alleged that the officers erased parts of the taped interview.
The district court dismissed the action without prejudice under the doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). It stated that “it is not appropriate for the federal courts to consider Boyer’s claims until his state conviction is final” because the constitutional issues raised in the 1983 action were also being considered in the criminal appeal.
Boyer appeals. We reverse and remand to the district court with directions to it to reinstate Boyer’s action, but to hold that action in abeyance until the state proceedings are completed. We do so for the reasons stated in William Seltzer v. John Ashcroft, et al., - F. 2d ——, decided this date. The district court, of course, retains the right to dismiss the action for proper reasons that are unrelated to the validity of Boyer’s constitutional claim.
Reversed and remanded.