MEMORANDUM ORDER

LISA PUPO LENIHAN, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Stay Civil Proceedings, ECF No. 64, filed by Defendants Borough of Wilkinsburg Police Department, Michel P. Catanzaro and Brandon Rourke. For the following reasons, the Motion will be denied.

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint seeks damages against Defendants for alleged unlawful and unconstitutional conduct stemming from his arrest on April 5, 2017. See, generally, ECF No. 57. Generally, Plaintiff alleges that officials lacked probable cause to arrest him and that he was maliciously prosecuted for crimes that were later nolle prossed on August 31, 2017. Id. Defendants, however, note that Plaintiff was also charged with federal crimes for the conduct that lead to his arrest on April 5, 2017, and they argue that this case should be stayed until his federal case has ended because the resolution of those charges directly impact the viability of his claims in this case.1 See ECF No. 65.

In support of their Motion, Defendants primarily rely on Wallace v. Keto, 549 U.S. 384 (2007), where the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the potential for inconsistent outcomes in the context of a false-arrest claim brought by a plaintiff before he had been convicted. It recognized that in such a situation, "it is within the power of the district court, and in accord with common practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended. . . . If the plaintiff is ultimately convicted, and if the stayed civil suit would impugn that conviction, Heck [v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)] will require dismissal; otherwise, the civil action will proceed, absent some other bar to suit." Id. at 393-94 (internal citations omitted).

Here, there is no doubt that a stay of these proceedings would be appropriate until such time Plaintiff's federal conviction was affirmed on appeal if Plaintiff's claims were related to his arrest2 and subsequent federal prosecution, but they are not. Instead, Plaintiff is seeking to recover damages for alleged unconstitutional conduct stemming from his arrest and prosecution for charges brought and eventually nolle prossed in Allegheny County. While both the state and federal charges arise out of the same criminal conduct,3 and the existence of Plaintiff's federal criminal case may be of consequence to resolving the claims in this case,4 the pending appeal of his federal conviction does not require the Court to stay these proceedings. Accordingly, the following Order is now entered:

AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2020,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Stay Civil Proceedings (ECF No. 64) is denied.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), and Local Civil Rule 72.C.2., the parties are allowed fourteen (14) days after the date of service of this Order to file objections to the determinations made herein, which shall specifically designate the parts of the order objected to and the basis for the objection. Any party opposing the objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the objections to respond thereto. Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.