Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02570/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02570-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH BIVINS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CONTRA COSTA CITY; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-2570 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND 

INTRODUCTION

Joseph Bivins, an inmate at Folsom State Prison, filed this pro se civil action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 or 28 U.S.C. § 1291. His complaint is now before the court for review

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. 

BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

The complaint now before the court concerns DNA evidence from the criminal case

that led to Bivins' 1975 double murder conviction. This is the latest in a series of actions

filed by Bivins about that conviction. After Bivins' first federal habeas petition was denied

in 1998, this court dismissed four more habeas petitions challenging the conviction because

he did not have permission from the Ninth Circuit to file a second/successive habeas petition,

and the Ninth Circuit has actually denied permission for him to do so.1

 

In the order dismissing Bivins' most recent habeas petition, the court noted that Bivins

had already been to state court with his DNA claim:

Case 3:08-cv-02570-MHP Document 4 Filed 09/26/08 Page 1 of 8
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

Bivens appears to be seeking renewed consideration based on a DNA evidence issue. 

It appears, however, that the state court granted his application for DNA evidence but

the result did not help him. The Contra Costa County Superior Court issued an order

dated November 2, 2006, stating that Bivens sought DNA testing in 2002, a public

defender was appointed, and DNA testing was done. The DNA test result inculpated

rather than cleared Bivens. See Motion For Writ of Habeas Corpus, Exh. M, p. 1.

Bivins v. Kramer, No. C 07-5643 MHP, Order of Dismissal, p. 2. 

The threshold problem in the current action is that the court is not certain what Bivins

wants the current action to be, as his filing has several indicia of being an appeal from a state

court decision. The first page of his pleading identifies it as a civil rights complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, but his jurisdictional statement states that "[t]his court has [sic] exercise

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, in conducting review of lower court's ruling on

the legal questions." Complaint, p. 2. Section 1291 provides no jurisdiction for the district

court: "The courts of appeals . . . shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of

the district courts of the United States. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Adding to the uncertainty is

the fact that the complaint came to this court via the Ninth Circuit, where it was stamped

"Received" and then forwarded to this court – suggesting that Bivins mailed the complaint to

the Ninth Circuit with the intent to file it in that court. Mailing the complaint to the Ninth

Circuit and citing a statute conferring appellate jurisdiction on the Ninth Circuit signal an

intent to file it in that court rather than this court. Another indicator that the pleading is

intended as an appeal from the state court's decision in the proceedings in which Bivins

obtained DNA testing are the allegations in the complaint about alleged errors made in the

state court case. See Complaint, pp. 8-10. 

B. Allegations In Complaint

The complaint presents a picture that is confused on some key points. Bivins alleges

that he is being denied state-funded DNA testing allowed by California Penal Code § 1405. 

He alleges that DNA testing was done on at least one object in response to his § 1405

motion, but that the testing did not comply with the procedural safeguards in § 1405. He

contends that the DNA sample tested was a contaminated sample. Complaint, pp. 8, see also

id. at 16 ("What Joseph Bivins received was some concocted testing that had NO procedures

Case 3:08-cv-02570-MHP Document 4 Filed 09/26/08 Page 2 of 8
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

or Safeguards to insure fair and accurate results.") Bivins also alleges that he has been told

that a gun that potentially had material with DNA that could be tested is no longer available

or was removed from the evidence room for use in another case. Id. at 18. There also are

allegations suggesting that all the evidence has been contaminated. Id. at 19-20, 22. 

The complaint alleges that there were problems in the § 1405 proceedings in state

court, e.g, that testing was done on the object without the court first giving permission for the

testing and without there being established what evidence could be tested or not tested. Id. at

20. The complaint alleges errors by the trial judge and Bivins' public defender in the § 1405

proceedings, and claims that Bivins was denied an evidentiary hearing at which he could

obtain testimony of witnesses about the crime itself. Id. at 8-10. 

Bivins then makes numerous allegations about problems at his trial in 1975, including

claims about his speedy trial right, his right to notice of charges, the unreliability of a

jailhouse informant, the denial of his right to cross-examine a witness, the exclusion of timeof-death evidence. Id. at 10-16. He alleges claims against various participants in the

investigation and criminal proceedings for a variety of acts and omissions, many of which

have nothing to do with the DNA evidence. Id. at 25-38. 

The prayer for relief requests that the court: (1) "Declare that the acts and omissions

described herein violated plaintiff's rights under the United States Constitutional 14th

Amendment by denial of an [sic] fundamental right to a fair trial by DNA Testing, and

revealing known testimony that establishes Joseph Bivins Actual and Factual Innocence." (2)

"Enter judgment in favor of plaintiff for Evidentiary hearing on DNA evidence and known

witness testimony, Order such additional relief as this Court may deem just and proper." 

Complaint, p. 39. 

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of 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 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon

Case 3:08-cv-02570-MHP Document 4 Filed 09/26/08 Page 3 of 8
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

which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

such relief. See id. at 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. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 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. See West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

The complaint presents a confusing picture and has some legally meritless claims,

which the court will require plaintiff to address in an amended complaint. In general terms,

the complaint tries to present a knot of problems for resolution all at once whereas the nature

of the problem requires that things be taken one step at a time. The DNA evidence issue is

the one that has to be decided first (and has to be decided in Bivins' favor) before Bivins

maybe can proceed to the next step to use that evidence to launch a new attack on his

conviction. See generally Osborne v. District Attorney's Office, 521 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir.

2008). The court now turns to the specific guidance for Bivins' amended complaint.

First, the complaint presents a confusing picture regarding the DNA evidence problem

such that the court does not understand whether Bivins wants this court to order DNA tests

on some object(s) or wants relief because some object(s) can no longer be subjected to DNA

testing. Bivins seems to indicate that all the potential evidence is now contaminated, but if

that is the case, it is not clear why there would be any point in further DNA testing. In his

amended complaint, he needs to clearly explain whether all the potential DNA evidence is

contaminated. If there are objects that are not contaminated and that he claims can and

should be tested, he needs to identify those objects, explain where they are, and explain how

he knows they are not contaminated in light of his assertions that the evidence box is

contaminated. Once the court understands the nature of the DNA evidence problem, it will

be able to understand whether a claim may be stated under § 1983. 

Second, Bivins cannot appeal from the state court decision because this court does not

have appellate jurisdiction. Federal district courts may not review the final determinations of

Case 3:08-cv-02570-MHP Document 4 Filed 09/26/08 Page 4 of 8
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

5

a state court because they are courts of original jurisdiction. See District of Columbia Court

of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S.

413, 415-16 (1923). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine essentially bars federal district courts

“from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state

court judgment.” Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). As

mentioned in the Background section above, there are indicia (i.e., sending the pleading to

the Ninth Circuit, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1291 as the basis for jurisdiction, and alleging errors by

the state court) that suggest that Bivins wants to appeal the state court decision. The review

available for the § 1405 decision is that set out in § 1405(j). In short, Bivins cannot appeal

here from the state court's decision in the § 1405 proceedings. Contentions about what the

state court did wrong in the § 1405 proceedings generally should not be included in the

amended complaint.

Third, the complaint attempts to use the DNA issue as a jurisdictional hook so that

Bivins can litigate other claims about his state court conviction. That won't work. The

declaratory relief Bivins seeks is not available to him. The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28

U.S.C. § 2201 (1993), "permits a federal court to declare the rights of a party whether or not

further relief is or could be sought, and . . . declaratory relief may be available even though

an injunction is not." Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 72 (1985). However, a prisoner may

not challenge his sentence by filing an action for declaratory relief under the Declaratory

Judgment Act. See United States v. Gutierrez, 116 F.3d 412, 415 (9th Cir. 1997). "'[T]he

Declaratory Judgment Act may not be used as a substitute for habeas corpus, coram nobis or

other such procedures.'" Id. at 416 (citations omitted) (affirming district court's denial of

motion for declaratory relief because "the Declaratory Judgment Act is not a substitute for a

§ 2255 motion to correct a sentence.") Bivins must craft a different prayer for relief in his

amended complaint. 

While there might be a DNA evidence related claim, none of the other claims in the

complaint can go forward in this action because they are essentially calling into question the

validity of the 1975 conviction. As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, a declaratory

Case 3:08-cv-02570-MHP Document 4 Filed 09/26/08 Page 5 of 8
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

6

relief action cannot be brought to challenge Bivins' conviction or sentence. And although the

complaint does not seek damages, Bivens is informed that seeking them in the amended

complaint would be futile under the Heck rule. The case of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477 (1994), held that a plaintiff cannot bring a civil rights action for damages for a wrongful

conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would

render a conviction or sentence invalid, unless that conviction or sentence already has been

determined to be wrongful. See id. at 486-87. A conviction or sentence may be determined

to be wrongful by, for example, being reversed on appeal or being set aside when a state or

federal court issues a writ of habeas corpus. See id. The Heck rule also prevents a person

from bringing an action that -- even if it does not directly challenge the conviction -- would

imply that the conviction was invalid. The practical importance of this rule is that plaintiffs

cannot attack their convictions in a civil rights action for damages; the conviction must have

been successfully attacked before the civil rights action for damages is filed. 

Fourth, Bivins claims a due process right based on a protected liberty interest created

by the mandatory language in California Penal Code § 1405. In his amended complaint, if he

wishes to assert this claim, he must identify the particular mandatory language he is relying

on as the basis for such a claim. 

CONCLUSION 

The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended complaint must be

filed no later than October 31, 2008, and must include the caption and civil case number

used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff is

cautioned that his amended complaint must be a complete statement of his claims and will

supersede existing pleadings. See London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th

Cir. 1981) ("a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are

not alleged in the amended complaint.") Failure to file the amended complaint by the

deadline will result in dismissal of this action.

Two cases were opened for plaintiff because his in forma pauperis application was

mailed in one envelope and his complaint was mailed in another envelope, and the envelopes

Case 3:08-cv-02570-MHP Document 4 Filed 09/26/08 Page 6 of 8
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

7

reached the courthouse on different days and were not matched with each other. By separate

order the court will dismiss the higher-numbered case (Case No C 08-2629 MHP). Petitioner

must make all further filings in this case, i.e., Case No. C 08-2570 MHP, writing this case

number on the first page of every document he files. The clerk will put a copy of the in

forma pauperis application from Case No. C 08-2629 MHP in the case file for Case No. C

08-2570 MHP. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2008 _______________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02570-MHP Document 4 Filed 09/26/08 Page 7 of 8
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

8

1. In a recent habeas action, the court recounted the habeas history of Bivins (who also goes

by the name of Joseph Bivens):

Joseph Bivens' habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction was denied on the

merits in 1998 in Bivens v. Lungren, Case No. C 96-3655 MHP, and affirmed on appeal

in 1999 in Ninth Circuit Case No. 98-15913. Three times thereafter Bivens tried to file

another habeas petition to challenge the same 1975 conviction and three times the court

dismissed the actions with instructions that Bivens had to obtain permission from the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive petition. See Bivens v.

Newland, Case No. 00-3477 MHP.; Bivins v. Runnel, Case No. 04-4411 TEH, and

Bivins v. Runnel, Case No. C 04-4751 MHP. Bivens finally sought permission from the

Ninth Circuit, but that court denied his application for authorization to file a second or

successive petition. See Bivins v. Kramer, 9th Cir. No. 07-71124, Order filed May 17,

2007. 

Bivins v. Kramer, No. C 07-5643 MHP, Order of Dismissal, p. 1. That order dismissed Bivins'

fifth habeas petition challenging the 1975 conviction because he had not obtained permission

from the Ninth Circuit to file another habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

NOTES

Case 3:08-cv-02570-MHP Document 4 Filed 09/26/08 Page 8 of 8