Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01036/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01036-0/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

No. C 10-1036 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 4/28/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MICHAEL DIXON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY & COUNTY OF 

SAN FRANCISCO, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 10-1036 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Michael Dixon filed the instant civil rights action against Defendants City

and County of San Francisco, Robert Dondero, Victoria Baldocchi, Stephen Rosen, and Does

1 through 15 (“defendants”) alleging that defendants withheld exculpatory DNA evidence at

his trial in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. (See Docket No. 4.) 

Plaintiff has filed a timely amended complaint and supporting affidavits. (See Docket Nos.

5, 6 & 7.) The amended complaint is before this Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). 

 

Case 3:10-cv-01036-RS Document 8 Filed 04/27/10 Page 1 of 5
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

No. C 10-1036 RS (PR)

2 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

BACKGROUND

According to the amended complaint, in 1998, a San Francisco Superior Court jury

convicted plaintiff of forcible rape, forcible sodomy, forcible digital penetration, aggravated

assault, and false imprisonment. Plaintiff sought, and was denied, relief on direct and

collateral state review. In 2001, plaintiff sought, and was granted, a writ of habeas corpus by

this Court as to the convictions for forcible rape, forcible sodomy, and forcible digital

penetration, and was denied habeas relief as to the aggravated assault and false imprisonment

convictions. The sexual assault convictions were voided, and, according to plaintiff, the

sexual assault charges were never refiled. 

In the instant action, plaintiff alleges that defendants withheld exculpatory evidence

during plaintiff’s trial on the sexual assault charges. That evidence was derived from (1) the

alleged victim’s vaginal, rectal, and oral swabs, and (2) swabs from plaintiff’s penis. As to

the former, no sperm was found on any of the swabs taken from the alleged victim. (The

alleged victim stated that plaintiff had ejaculated on her leg.) As to the latter, the alleged

victim possessed the same genetic profile as one that appeared on one of plaintiff’s penile

swabs. With respect to that same evidence, while plaintiff’s genetic profile was different

than that found on another of his penile swabs, it was “compatible” with a secondary source

of DNA found on another penile swab. Plaintiff alleges that if this allegedly withheld

evidence had been presented to the jury, the outcome of the trial would have been different. 

DISCUSSION

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

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

Case 3:10-cv-01036-RS Document 8 Filed 04/27/10 Page 2 of 5
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

No. C 10-1036 RS (PR)

3 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (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). 

In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the Supreme Court held “the suppression

by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process

where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith

or bad faith of the prosecution.” Id. at 87. Since Brady, the Supreme Court has made clear

that the duty to disclose such evidence applies even when there has been no request by the

accused, see United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107 (1976), and that the duty encompasses

impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence, see United States v. Bagley, 473

U.S. 667, 676 (1985). Under Brady, evidence is material “if there is a reasonable probability

that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have

been different.” “A ‘reasonable probability’ is a probability sufficient to undermine

confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 682. 

A review of the amended complaint reveals that plaintiff has failed to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted. Specifically, plaintiff has not stated facts from which a

Brady claim can be drawn. The DNA signature found on the penile swabs matches either

Case 3:10-cv-01036-RS Document 8 Filed 04/27/10 Page 3 of 5
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

1 Petitioner’s admission that he had consensual sex with the alleged victim appears in the

Amended Order Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Docket No. 44, Case No.

01-04974 MMC (PR). 

No. C 10-1036 RS (PR)

4 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

that of plaintiff, or of the alleged victim, or neither. This evidence indicates that cells from

plaintiff were found on plaintiff, and that cells from the alleged victim were found on

plaintiff. These results show nothing more than that plaintiff and the alleged victim had

sexual contact, a result that works no surprise as plaintiff himself admitted at trial that he had

consensual sex with the alleged victim.1

 In sum, such facts do not plausibly show that there

is a reasonable probability that the result of plaintiff’s trial would have been different had the

DNA evidence been timely disclosed to the defense. Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to

correct the deficiencies discussed in the order dismissing the original complaint. 

Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

CONCLUSION 

Plaintiff’s complaint, and thereby the action, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 27, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01036-RS Document 8 Filed 04/27/10 Page 4 of 5
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

No. C 10-1036 RS (PR)

5 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO:

Michael Dixon 

Prisoner Id 2336143 

SF#313852 ; CDC #P-27448 

850 Bryant Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

DATED: 04/28/2010 

 

 

s/ Chambers Staff 

Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

* Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to any co-counsel who

have not registered with the Court's electronic filing system.

Case 3:10-cv-01036-RS Document 8 Filed 04/27/10 Page 5 of 5