Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03224/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03224-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

N:\Pro - Se\7.27.2007\06-03224 Gomis03224_dismissal.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOINE GOMIS,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

ALBERTO GONZALES, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-3224 JW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket Nos. 2 and 4)

Plaintiff, a detainee of the Department of Immigrations and Customs

Enforcement (“I.C.E.”) in Bakersfield, California, has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff

challenges his detention, as well as a removal order by I.C.E. officials. He seeks money

damages, release from custody and to vacate the removal order. Plaintiff requests leave

to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Docket Nos. 2 and 4). 

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

Case 5:06-cv-03224-JW Document 8 Filed 07/27/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

N:\Pro - Se\7.27.2007\06-03224 Gomis03224_dismissal.wpd 2

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims

or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

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 two essential

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff does not state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. 

With respect to his claims for money damages, he may not obtain such damages based

on his allegedly unlawful detention and removal by I.C.E. officials until his detention

and removal order have reversed on direct, expunged, declared invalid by a tribunal

authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487

(1994); see Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding the rationale and

conclusion of Heck apply in cases brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)).

With respect to plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief, specifically for release

from custody and to have the removal order vacated, the Supreme Court has

consistently held that any claim by a prisoner attacking the fact or duration of his

confinement must be brought under the habeas sections of Title 28 of the United States

Code. See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998); Edwards v. Balisok, 520

U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). To the extent

plaintiff wishes to challenge the fact or duration of his custody, he must do so in a

Case 5:06-cv-03224-JW Document 8 Filed 07/27/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

N:\Pro - Se\7.27.2007\06-03224 Gomis03224_dismissal.wpd

habeas petition, not in a civil rights complaint. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma

pauperis (Docket Nos. 2 and 4) are DENIED. No fee is due.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 2, 4, and any other pending motions.

DATED: July 19, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-03224-JW Document 8 Filed 07/27/07 Page 3 of 3