Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04638/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04638-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY GRAVES-BEY,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, EDWARD

JOHNSTON, S. CROSBY, G.R.

KOELLING, J. ROSS, ARLO

SMITH, ALPHA BULE, DAVID

MELTON, ARLENE M. SAUSER, N.

STRETCH, SARAFANE CROSBY, 

Defendants. /

No. C 15-4638 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Dkt. 2)

INTRODUCTION

This is a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 filed by a California

prisoner. He claims that defendants, who were state prosecutors, public defenders, and state

court judges, violated his constitutional rights in the course of his criminal proceedings in the

late 1980s and early 1990s. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is DISMISSED

without prejudice.

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

Case 3:15-cv-04638-WHA Document 6 Filed 10/21/15 Page 1 of 3
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

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

at 1974. 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 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2)

that the violation 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 alleges that he was convicted and sentenced for possession of drugs multiple

times in the 1980s and 1990s, he believes unfairly. He seeks money damages and injunctive

relief against defendants, who are employees of the District Attorney’s Office, the Public

Defender’s Office, and the San Francisco County Superior Court for supplying false statements

in criminal reports, malicious prosecution, false arrest and false imprisonment. He seeks ten

million dollars in damages and a declaratory judgment. 

Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages are not allowed. The United States Supreme

Court has held that to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional confinement, or for

other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render the confinement invalid, a

plaintiff must prove that the judgment has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by

Case 3:15-cv-04638-WHA Document 6 Filed 10/21/15 Page 2 of 3
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

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). If plaintiff were successful here on his claims that arrest,

indictment, prosecution, and imprisonment, were all unconstitutional, that would necessarily

imply the invalidity of his conviction, sentence and confinement. Accordingly, plaintiff’s

claims for monetary damages are dismissed without prejudice until and unless his conviction

and sentence are overturned or otherwise called into question. See generally Alvarez-Machain

v. United States, 107 F.3d 696, 700-01 (9th Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff’s claims for an injunction to stop the defendants from charging or prosecuting

him again on the same charges are also barred. Injunctive relief may not be granted absent a

great and immediate threat that the plaintiff will suffer future irreparable injury for which there

is no adequate remedy at law. Nava v. City of Dublin, 121 F.3d 453, 458 (9th Cir. 1997). Past

injury to plaintiff is usually insufficient to satisfy this requirement. Id. at 459. Plaintiff has

alleged no threat that he will be prosecuted on the same charges again. He has alleged that he

was unfairly charged and prosecuted for the same offense in the late 1980s and 1990s, but he

has alleged no current indication that defendants intend to prosecute him again now, nearly 20

years later. As there is no allegation of a current, let alone immediate, threat of harm to

plaintiff, his claim for injunctive relief is denied without prejudice to bringing such a claim

again in the future when and if such a threat arises. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. In light of

this conclusion, the motion for appointment of counsel (dkt. 3) is DENIED. 

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21 , 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-04638-WHA Document 6 Filed 10/21/15 Page 3 of 3