Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00073/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00073-0/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

1 12cv0073 JLS (BGS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES E. MOSES, Jr.,

CDCR # K-65174 Civil

No. 

12cv0073 JLS (BGS)

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, [ECF No. 2]; 

(2) DISMISSING ACTION 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b)

vs.

CYNTHIA WHITE,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the California Medical Facility located

in Vacaville, California and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United

States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay only if the party is

granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Prisoners granted leave to

proceed IFP however, remain obligated to pay the entire fee in installments, regardless of

Case 3:12-cv-00073-JLS-BGS Document 5 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 5
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 12cv0073 JLS (BGS)

whether the action is ultimately dismissed for any reason. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit which complies with 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1), and that he has attached a certified copy of his trust account statement pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D.CAL.CIVLR 3.2. Plaintiff’s trust account statement shows that

he has insufficient funds from which to pay an initial partial filing fee.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [ECF No. 2] and

assesses no initial partial filing fee per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

II. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)’s amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 also

obligate the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like

Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or

adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole,

probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as practicable after docketing.”

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Under these provisions, the Court must sua

sponte dismiss any prisoner civil action and all other IFP complaints, or any portions thereof,

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from defendants who

are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A.

Plaintiff names only one Defendant, Cynthia White, whom he alleges was the court

reporter who prepared the transcripts from his criminal proceedings. See Compl. at 3. Plaintiff

seeks to hold Defendant White liable for alleged violations of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment

due process rights because Plaintiff claims there are numerous errors in these transcripts and “it

appears” that the transcripts were “altered to fit the prosecution misstatements.” Id. 

These claims appear to mount to an attack on the constitutional validity of Plaintiff’s

criminal proceedings, and as such, may not be maintained pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless

and until he can show that his criminal conviction has already been invalidated. Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).

“In any § 1983 action, the first question is whether § 1983 is the appropriate avenue to

remedy the alleged wrong.” Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1353 (9th Cir. 1985) (en

Case 3:12-cv-00073-JLS-BGS Document 5 Filed 03/19/12 Page 2 of 5
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 12cv0073 JLS (BGS)

banc). A prisoner in state custody simply may not use a § 1983 civil rights action to challenge

the “fact or duration of his confinement.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). The

prisoner must seek federal habeas corpus relief instead. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78

(2005) (quoting Preiser, 411 U.S. at 489). Thus, Plaintiff’s § 1983 action “is barred (absent

prior invalidation)--no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target

of his suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)--if success in that

action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson,

544 U.S. at 82. 

In this case, Plaintiff’s claims appear to “necessarily imply the invalidity” of his criminal

proceedings and subsequent incarceration. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. In creating the favorable

termination rule in Heck, the Supreme Court relied on “the hoary principle that civil tort actions

are not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments.”

Heck, 511 U.S. at 486. This is precisely what it appears that Plaintiff attempts to accomplish

here. Therefore, to satisfy Heck’s “favorable termination” rule, Plaintiff must first allege facts

which show that the criminal proceeding which forms the basis of his § 1983 Complaint has

already been: (1) reversed on direct appeal; (2) expunged by executive order; (3) declared

invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a determination; or (4) called into question

by the grant of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487; see also Butterfield v. Bail, 120

F.3d 1023, 1025 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges no facts sufficient to satisfy

Heck. Accordingly, because Plaintiff seeks damages for allegedly unconstitutional criminal

proceedings, and because he has not shown that his criminal conviction has been invalidated,

either by way of direct appeal, state habeas or pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a § 1983 claim for

damages cannot be maintained, see Heck, 512 U.S. at 489-90, and his Complaint must be

dismissed without prejudice, see Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995)

(finding that an action barred by Heck has not yet accrued and thus, must be dismissed without

prejudice so that the plaintiff may reassert his § 1983 claims if he ever succeeds in invalidating

the underlying conviction or sentence); accord Blueford v. Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 255 (9th Cir.

1997). 

Case 3:12-cv-00073-JLS-BGS Document 5 Filed 03/19/12 Page 3 of 5
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 12cv0073 JLS (BGS)

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No. 2] is

GRANTED.

2. The Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or his

designee, is ordered to collect from Plaintiff’s prison trust account the $350 balance of the filing

fee owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from the trust account in an amount equal

to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month’s income credited to the account and forward

payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ALL PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY

IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Matthew Cate,

Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, P.O. Box 942883,

Sacramento, California, 94283-0001.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

4. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2)(b) & 1915A. However, Plaintiff is GRANTED forty five (45) days leave from

the date this Order is filed in which to file a First Amended Complaint which cures all the

deficiencies of pleading noted above. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be complete in itself

without reference to the superseded pleading. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1. Defendants not

named and all claims not re-alleged in the Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, if Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, it may be dismissed without further

leave to amend and may hereafter be counted as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See

McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996). 

 / / /

/ / /

Case 3:12-cv-00073-JLS-BGS Document 5 Filed 03/19/12 Page 4 of 5
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

5 12cv0073 JLS (BGS)

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a court approved § 1983 form complaint to

Plaintiff.

DATED: March 19, 2012

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-00073-JLS-BGS Document 5 Filed 03/19/12 Page 5 of 5