Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01126/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01126-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIMBERLY R. OLSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1126 DFL CMK 

vs.

DARREL LEMOS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil rights

action alleging various civil rights violations stemming from an September 22, 2003 arrest. By

order filed October 30, 2006, the court ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint which

alleged that any criminal charge, conviction or sentence stemming from the September 22, 2003

arrest has been dropped or otherwise resolved in her favor. For reasons more fully explained

below, the court finds that dismissal based on Heck is appropriate. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at any

time if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 

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 § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,

Case 2:06-cv-01126-TLN-CMK Document 24 Filed 12/01/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a

decision, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. See

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that relationship

to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. 

Here, plaintiff states in her complaint that “prior to, and during the pendency of the

criminal action against Plaintiff,...” defendants continued to violate her civil rights. (Am. Compl.,

at 7:17-22.) However, plaintiff does not allege anywhere in her amended complaint that any

pending criminal charges, conviction or sentence stemming from the September 22, 2003 arrest

have been dismissed, reversed, expunged, declared invalid or called into question by a federal

court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, despite the court’s direct order to do so. 

Further, on November 22, 2006, the defendants filed a motion requesting that the

court take judicial notice of the fact that Siskiyou County Superior Court records reveal that

plaintiff’s conviction stemming from the September 2003 incident has not been reversed,

dismissed, or otherwise called into question. (Doc. 21; People v. Olson, 2006 Cal. App. Unpub.

Lexis 9723.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the court takes judicial notice of this

fact. A check of the Siskiyou County Superior Court records reveals that plaintiff’s conviction

stemming from the September 2003 incident is currently on appeal and has not been overturned.

See www.siskiyou.courts.ca.gov. 

The court finds that plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a cognizable claim

for relief because she cannot establish that any pending criminal charges, conviction or sentence

stemming from the September 23, 2003 arrest have been dismissed, reversed, expunged, declared

invalid or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. In light of

the court’s finding that plaintiff fails to state a cognizable federal civil rights claim, the court will

recommend that the district court decline to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state claims. See

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Therefore, the court recommends that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed in

its entirety. 

Case 2:06-cv-01126-TLN-CMK Document 24 Filed 12/01/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Also pending before the court are defendants’ August 9, 2006 and November 22,

2006 motions to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. In light of the recommendation that plaintiff’s

complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim, the court finds that the motions to dismiss are

moot.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted. 

2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (docs. 9 and 19) are rendered moot by the

dismissal of the complaint in this action . 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, either party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 30, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01126-TLN-CMK Document 24 Filed 12/01/06 Page 3 of 3