Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05386/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05386-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AARON A. LUDTKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD BORG,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-05386-WHO (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff Aaron A. Ludtke filed this civil rights action against the Lake County 

assistant district attorney, Edward Borg, who successfully prosecuted him. The United 

States Supreme Court in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994) barred claims 

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that, if successful, would appear to invalidate a conviction 

or sentence that has not already 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. Ludtke’s case 

appears to do what Heck v Humphrey precludes. Accordingly, his suit is DISMISSED 

without prejudice. 

Case 3:16-cv-05386-WHO Document 7 Filed 10/12/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

In its initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must dismiss any claim that 

is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

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

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 

(9th Cir. 1994). 

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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Ludtke, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this section 1983 suit against 

Lake County prosecutor Borg for successfully prosecuting him for willfully failing to 

update his registration as a sex offender.1 In order to recover damages for an 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 

 

1 People v. Ludtke, No. A144485, 2016 WL 2658141 (Cal. Ct. App. May 6, 2016).

Case 3:16-cv-05386-WHO Document 7 Filed 10/12/16 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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 v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages bearing 

that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not 

cognizable under section 1983. Id. at 487. 

Where, as in this case, a state prisoner seeks damages in a section 1983 suit, the 

district court must 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 been 

invalidated. Id. at 487. Here, a judgment that defendant, while acting as prosecutor, 

violated Ludtke’s constitutional rights would necessarily imply the invalidity of his 

conviction or sentence. 

Because it is not clear from the complaint that Ludtke’s convictions have been 

invalidated, this section 1983 suit is barred by Heck. Accordingly, the action is 

DISMISSED without prejudice to Ludtke refiling such claims when he can make such a 

showing. 

If Ludtke wishes to challenge the constitutional validity of his state conviction(s), 

he should exhaust his state judicial remedies before filing for federal relief. 

CONCLUSION

This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall 

enter judgment in favor of defendant, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 12, 2016

_________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-05386-WHO Document 7 Filed 10/12/16 Page 3 of 3