Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00238/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00238-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY GORDON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0238 GEB GGH P

vs.

OFFICER ROBERTS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se. He seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. 

This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for this action. 28

U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff has been without funds for six months and is currently

without funds. Accordingly, the court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding

month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments shall be collected

Case 2:06-cv-00238-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/11/06 Page 1 of 6
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

2

and forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in

plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also

Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing

a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00238-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/11/06 Page 2 of 6
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

3

Named as defendants are the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department, Superior Court

Department 9 and Officer Roberts. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Roberts failed to preserve

exculpatory evidence including fingerprints, blood and weapons. Plaintiff alleges that defendant

Roberts helped to obtain a false statement from the victim and failed to do any meaningful

investigation. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Superior Court abused its discretion by denying

plaintiff’s pretrial motions. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Sacramento Sheriff’s Department

harassed a material witness. As relief, plaintiff seeks money damages and an order directing

defendants to stop harassing his witnesses and for defendant Roberts’ records to be opened up.

With respect to plaintiff’s claims challenging the Superior Court’s denial of his

motions, this court has no authority to review the final determinations of a state court in judicial

proceedings. Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 (9 Cir. 1995). Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims th

against the Superior Court are dismissed.

With respect to plaintiff’s claim for money damages against defendant Sheriff’s

Department, a municipality may be held liable for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a policy,

practice, or custom that causes a constitutional violation. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Soc.

Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018 (1978). Plaintiff does not allege that his witnesses were

harassed pursuant to a policy or custom of defendant Sheriff’s Department. Accordingly, this

claim is dismissed. 

In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994), an Indiana state

prisoner brought a civil rights action under § 1983 for damages. Claiming that state and county

officials violated his constitutional rights, he sought damages for improprieties in the

investigation leading to his arrest, for the destruction of evidence, and for conduct during his trial

(“illegal and unlawful voice identification procedure”). Convicted on voluntary manslaughter

charges, and serving a fifteen year term, plaintiff did not seek injunctive relief or release from

custody. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the

complaint and held that:

Case 2:06-cv-00238-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/11/06 Page 3 of 6
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

4

in order to recover damages for 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, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages

bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not

been so invalidated is not cognizable under 1983.

Heck, 512 U.S. at 486, 114 S. Ct. at 2372. The Court expressly held that a cause of action for

damages under § 1983 concerning a criminal conviction or sentence cannot exist unless the

conviction or sentence has been invalidated, expunged or reversed. Id.

Plaintiff’s claims for money damages against defendant Roberts appear to be

barred by Heck v. Humphrey as they implicate either a criminal conviction or pending charges. 

Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1014 (9 Cir. 2000)(Heck applies to pending charges). th

Accordingly, these claims are dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff should only include these

claims in an amended complaint if his criminal conviction has been invalidated, expunged or

reversed.

Were plaintiff to allege that his witnesses were harassed pursuant to a policy

enacted by defendant Sheriff’s Department, plaintiff’s claim for damages against this defendant

would most likely be barred by Heck. 

With respect to plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, if plaintiff has been

convicted of a crime the proper forum for challenging the validity of his conviction is a petition

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. If plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief,

i.e. an order directing defendants to stop harassing his witnesses and to open up records, concern

an ongoing criminal action, the court does not have jurisdiction. See Younger v. Harris, 410 U.S.

37, 91 S.Ct. 746 (1971); World Famous Drinking Emporium v. City of Tempe, 820 F.2d 1079,

1082 (9 Cir. 1987)(the federal court must abstain from actions concerning pending state th

criminal prosecutions).

Case 2:06-cv-00238-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/11/06 Page 4 of 6
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

5

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless

there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.

1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board

of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v.

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

alleged. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for this action. 

The fee shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the

California Department of Corrections filed concurrently herewith.

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00238-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/11/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

3. The complaint is dismissed for the reasons discussed above, with leave to file

an amended complaint within thirty days from the date of service of this order. Failure to file an

amended complaint will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

DATED: 4/10/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

gor238.b

Case 2:06-cv-00238-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/11/06 Page 6 of 6