Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05479/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05479-1/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

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\CR.14\Avena479dis.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS J. AVENA, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 14-5479 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages and injunctive and declaratory relief for alleged

civil rights violations. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate

order. For the reasons stated below, the court dismisses the complaint for failure to state a claim.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and 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. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),

(),/('

Case 5:14-cv-05479-RMW Document 15 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 4
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

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\CR.14\Avena479dis.wpd 2

(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

In a lengthy complaint plaintiff states that in 1981 he was convicted in state court of

robbery, assault with intent to commit murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and attempted

robbery. In 1982, plaintiff was sentenced to death. Plaintiff essentially seeks to overturn his

conviction and death penalty and receive money damages. Plaintiff challenges the practices and

procedures of death penalty appeals in California, and appears to state general legal principles as

general legal claims regarding trial errors, such as the effective assistance of counsel and

prosecutorial duties. 

Although the complaint is approximately 50 pages in length, there are very few facts in it

relating to plaintiff’s specific situation. The complaint appears to be an original or photocopied

“form” complaint, which has also been filed by other death row inmates (with few minor

differences). Indeed, the almost-identical complaint has been filed by other death row inmates

and uniformly rejected. See Duff v. Brown, No. C 14-4036 EMC (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 14,

2014) (dismissed as frivolous and failing to state a claim); Bolin v. State of California, No. C 14-

4087 PJH (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 14, 2014) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Brasure v.

State of California, No. 14-4037 JST (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 14, 2014) (dismissed as frivolous and

for failing to state a claim); Shove v. State of California, No. C 14-4196 JD (N.D. Cal. filed Aug.

5, 2014) (dismissed as frivolous and failing to state a claim).

To the extent plaintiff seeks to challenge his conviction, he must file a federal habeas

petition after his claims have been exhausted in state court. Under principles of comity and

federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by

granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances not present here. 

Case 5:14-cv-05479-RMW Document 15 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 4
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

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\CR.14\Avena479dis.wpd 3

See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). To the extent plaintiff seeks money damages

arising from his conviction, those claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 

Because no amount of amendment would cure the deficiencies of the complaint, this action is

DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and as frivolous because plaintiff’s

complaint “merely repeats previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,

1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995). 

CONCLUSION

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: RONALD M. WHYTE 

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-05479-RMW Document 15 Filed 04/30/15 Page 3 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS J AVENA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV14-05479 RMW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on April 30, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Carlos J. Avena C 43001

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94974

Dated: April 30, 2015

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jackie Lynn Garcia, Deputy Clerk

Case 5:14-cv-05479-RMW Document 15 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 4