Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05186/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05186-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Green186dwlta 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORNELIUS LASHUN GREEN, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

DISTRICT ATTORNEY, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-5186 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office, Contra

Costa County jail deputies, Contra Costa County Public Defenders, and officers of the

Richmond Police Department. The Court will dismiss the complaint with leave to amend

as it appears Plaintiff’s claims are barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

**E-filed 2/9/07**

Case 5:06-cv-05186-JF Document 7 Filed 02/09/07 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Green186dwlta 2

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person

acting under the color of state law committed a violation of a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). To

state a claim a plaintiff must show a specific constitutional or federal guarantee

safeguarding the interests that have been invaded. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 697

(1976). 

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Richmond Police Department Officers, his

parole agents, and the Contra Costa County District Attorneys are involved in misconduct

resulting in his arrest and incarceration. Based upon the allegations in the complaint, it

appears Plaintiff’s claims may be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 

Heck held that “in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a

conviction or sentence invalid, a [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the

conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,

declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into

question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-

87. When a prisoner seeks damages in a civil rights action, the district court must

therefore consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply

the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed

unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been

invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. 

If plaintiff wishes to challenge his conviction or sentence, a petition for writ of

habeas corpus is the exclusive method by which he may challenge a state court conviction

Case 5:06-cv-05186-JF Document 7 Filed 02/09/07 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Green186dwlta 3

in this court. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Before he may file a

federal petition, however, plaintiff must exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct

appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available

with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every issue he seeks to raise in

federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A),(c); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3

(1981). 

It is unclear from Plaintiff’s allegations whether he is challenging his arrest and

current incarceration based upon the Defendants’ misconduct. Accordingly, the Court

will DISMISS the instant complaint with leave to amend for Plaintiff to clarify his claims.

Plaintiff must allege facts supporting his claim against each Defendant separately

in his amended complaint showing his entitlement to relief from each Defendant. 

Plaintiff should list the constitutional right he has, describe what the Defendants did or

failed to do, and describe how each Defendant’s acts or omissions caused him injury. 

Plaintiff must be careful to allege facts showing the basis for liability for each individual

defendant. He should not refer to the defendants as a group, i.e., “the defendants;” rather,

he should identify each involved Defendant by name and link each of them to a specific

claim by explaining what each defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of his

constitutional rights. 

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within

thirty days of the date this order is filed to include sufficient facts to support his claims

and the alleged constitutional violations he suffered. 

 CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED with leave to amend, as

indicated above, within thirty days from the date this order is filed. The amended

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (06-5186 JF

(PR)) and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended

complaint completely replaces the original complaint, Plaintiff must include in it all the

claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert.

Case 5:06-cv-05186-JF Document 7 Filed 02/09/07 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Green186dwlta 4

denied, 113 S. Ct. 321 (1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the original

complaint by reference. Plaintiff must include all documentation and supporting

information regarding his claims with the amended complaint. Failure to amend within

the designated time will result in the Court dismissing the instant complaint without

prejudice based upon Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 

 2. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely

fashion or ask for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the

dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ________________ JEREMY FOGEL

 United States District Judge

2/9/07

Case 5:06-cv-05186-JF Document 7 Filed 02/09/07 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Green186dwlta 5

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Cornelius Lashun Green

J-38916

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94974

Case 5:06-cv-05186-JF Document 7 Filed 02/09/07 Page 5 of 5