Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01757/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01757-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID PATRICK CURRY,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

MICHAEL HENNESSEY, San Francisco

County Sheriff; KAMALA HARRIS, San

Francisco County District Attorney; and

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-1757 PJH (PR)

PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND

STAY; ORDER TO

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE

CASE

Plaintiff, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis.

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

dismiss any claims which 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 two essential

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

Case 4:07-cv-01757-PJH Document 5 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

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. Legal Claims

Plaintiff is a pre-trial detainee. He has been charged with burglary, which is being

prosecuted as a violent felony as California law provides. He alleges that treating the

burglary as a violent felony violates his constitutional rights because there was no one

home when he broke into the house and he committed no act of violence as that term is

usually understood. He asks that state law be interpreted to make a crime a violent felony

only if an actual act of violence is committed, for his crime to be "reclassified" or the

charges dismissed, and for punitive and compensatory damages.

1. Claim for release

A claim that would necessarily imply the invalidity of a prisoner’s conviction or

continuing confinement must be brought in a habeas petition. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411

U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Therefore, plaintiff's contention that the charges against him should

be dismissed will be dismissed without prejudice to bringing it in a habeas petition. 

2. Claims for damages

The United States Supreme Court has held that 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 § 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 v. Humphrey,

114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). 

The Ninth Circuit has extended Heck beyond the context of convictions to hold that it

applies to claims challenging the validity of an arrest, prosecution or conviction, such as

those plaintiff presents here. See, e.g., Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 703 (9th Cir.

2006) (Heck barred plaintiff’s claims of wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution and

conspiracy among police officers to bring false charges); Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d

Case 4:07-cv-01757-PJH Document 5 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

1008, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000) (Heck bars claims which necessarily implicate the validity of

pending criminal charges). However, in the recent case of Wallace v. Kato, 127 S. Ct.

1091 (2007), the United States Supreme Court held that the "Heck rule for deferred accrual

is called into play only when there exists 'a conviction or sentence that has not been ...

invalidated,' that is to say, an 'outstanding criminal judgment.'" Id. at 1097-98 (quoting

Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87). The Court stated that the contention that "an action which

would impugn an anticipated future conviction cannot be brought until that conviction

occurs and is set aside" goes "well beyond Heck" and rejected it. Id. at 1098 (italics in

original). Although the Court was only considering when a the statute of limitations began

running on a false arrest/false imprisonment claim, the discussion quoted above means

that Heck does not apply if plaintiff has only been arrested or charged, not convicted, which

is the case here.

In Wallace the Court said that if a plaintiff files a § 1983 false arrest claim before he

or she is convicted, or files any other claim related to rulings that likely will be made in a

pending or anticipated criminal trial, it is within the power, and accords with common

practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is

ended. Id. If the plaintiff is then convicted, and if the stayed civil suit would impugn that

conviction, Heck requires dismissal; otherwise, the case may proceed. Id.

After Wallace, the Ninth Circuit's holding that Heck applies to cases directed to

pending criminal charges is limited to the situation where there is an extant conviction at

the time the federal case is filed. In cases such as this one, where there is no extant

conviction, it is appropriate to follow the Supreme Court's suggestion and stay the case. 

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff's claim for dismissal of the charges against him and release is

DISMISSED. Because he says that defendant Hennessey, the sheriff, is included only

because he is plaintiff's custodian and could give relief on this claim, Hennessey is

DISMISSED from the case.

///

Case 4:07-cv-01757-PJH Document 5 Filed 05/10/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

2. This case is STAYED pending resolution of the criminal charges against plaintiff. 

The clerk shall administratively close the case. This is a purely statistical matter which has

no legal effect. 

3. If plaintiff desires to continue with this case after disposition of the criminal

charges against him, he must request that the stay be lifted within thirty days of disposition

of the criminal charges, unless an appeal is filed. If he appeals, any request to lift the stay

must be filed within thirty days of completion of the appellate process. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10 , 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.07\CURRY757.STAY

Case 4:07-cv-01757-PJH Document 5 Filed 05/10/07 Page 4 of 4