Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02623/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02623-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOMER E. HAWKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN MATEO COUNTY LAW

LIBRARY; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-2623 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Homer E. Hawkins, currently an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the court for review pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. 

BACKGROUND

Hawkins filed a complaint in which he alleged that he was granted pro per status on April

22, 2005 in a state criminal case pending against him in San Mateo County. He alleged in his

complaint that the law library provided for jailed inmates was inadequate for him as a pro per

criminal defendant and that he was unable to send out some pieces of legal mail that may have

related to the pending criminal case. He also alleges that he was subject to an illegal arrest and

a Miranda violation in the criminal case pending against him. The relief requested included a

transfer of Hawkins' criminal case to San Francisco County, a stay of the proceedings, a writ of

prohibition and damages. 

Case 3:05-cv-02623-SI Document 5 Filed 03/02/06 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

2

Before the court reviewed the original complaint, Hawkins filed a second complaint,

using the same case number as the original complaint. In the second complaint, his focus was

an impounded car. Apparently, Hawkins' car was impounded when he was arrested.

Attachments to the second complaint indicate that the car was sold about 60 days after it was

impounded. Hawkins contends that there was a due process violation in connection with the

impounding and/or sale of the vehicle, see Complaint, p. 2, but does not explain how either event

violated his right to due process.

On the same day he filed his second complaint, Hawkins also filed a petition for writ of

habeas corpus, again using the same case number as the original complaint. In his habeas

petition, he claimed that (a) his impounded vehicle was improperly sold, (b) there was an

improper search of his vehicle incident to his arrest, (c) the private defender's office refused to

provide services that a judge granted or denied, (d) he was not allowed a pretrial hearing in the

criminal case, and (e) state court judges did not care that Hawkins' Fourth Amendment rights and

Miranda rights were violated.

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 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).

Case 3:05-cv-02623-SI Document 5 Filed 03/02/06 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

3

The pleadings have several defects that require the dismissal of most of the claims.

First, most of Hawkins' claims relate to the state court criminal case pending against him

that this court will not stop. For example, he allegedly is not being allowed adequate access to

the law library and supplies to represent himself in the criminal case, the arrest allegedly was

unlawful, and he was not advised of his Miranda rights. His requested relief makes it quite clear

that he wants this court to interfere with the ongoing criminal case against him, as he asks for

a transfer of the case to another county, a stay of proceedings, and a writ of prohibition. This

court will not interfere with a state criminal case pending against Hawkins. Under principles of

comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal

proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances. See

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971); Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 68-74 (1971).

There are no extraordinary circumstances alleged here. 

Second, to the extent Hawkins seeks damages for claims relating to the state court

criminal case pending against him, the claims for damages likely have not accrued 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 unless that conviction already

has been determined to be wrongful. See id. at 486-87. A conviction 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. Heck also applies to pretrial

detainees, and bars claims which necessarily implicate the validity of pending criminal charges.

See Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). For Hawkins, the Heck rule

means that if he is still a pretrial detainee, or has been convicted of the crimes with which he was

charged, no claim that necessarily implicates the validity of the criminal charges has accrued.

For example, a claim that he was unable to meaningfully exercise his right to represent himself

Case 3:05-cv-02623-SI Document 5 Filed 03/02/06 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

4

because the law library was not well-stocked would call into question the validity of the criminal

conviction or pending charges and therefore would not accrue until he is acquitted or has the

conviction set aside. 

Third, it appears that Hawkins may be attempting to claim a violation of his constitutional

right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-51 (1996). To establish a

claim for any violation of the right of access to the courts, the inmate must show that there was

an inadequacy in the jail's legal access program that caused him an actual injury. See id. at 351.

To prove an actual injury, the inmate must show that the inadequacy hindered him in presenting

a non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or conditions of confinement. See id. at 355.

Examples of impermissible hindrances include: an inmate whose complaint was dismissed for

failure to satisfy some technical requirement which, because of deficiencies in the jail's legal

assistance facilities, he could not have known; and an inmate who had "suffered arguably

actionable harm" that he wished to bring to the attention of the court, but was so stymied by the

inadequacies of the library that he was unable even to file a complaint. See id. at 351. Mere

delay in filing papers would not be enough, for example, if they were nevertheless timely filed

or accepted and considered by the court. See Hudson v. Robinson, 678 F.2d 462, 466 (3d Cir.

1982). Hawkins has not identified any actual injury as he must to state a claim for a violation

of his constitutional right of access to the court. Furthermore, for the reasons stated in the last

two paragraphs above, the actual injury for his access to the courts claim cannot be a conviction

of the criminal charges against him.

Fourth, the complaint does not state a cognizable due process claim concerning Hawkins'

vehicle. Hawkins alleges that his right to due process was violated when his vehicle was

impounded upon his arrest and/or when the impounded vehicle later was sold, but the due

process violation is not evident in the facts alleged. Hawkins must file an amended complaint

in which he explains the basis for his due process claim. He should identify the procedural

protection(s) to which he was entitled, identify the person(s) who deprived him of each such

protection, and state when the deprivation(s) occurred.

 

Case 3:05-cv-02623-SI Document 5 Filed 03/02/06 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

5

Hawkins already has filed three pleadings: an original complaint, a second complaint, and

a habeas petition. He did not indicate that either of the latter two documents was intended to

supersede the original complaint. The court is concerned about the uncertainty as to which of

the multiple pleadings is intended as the operative one and also is concerned that the scope of

this action should not continue to shift. Therefore, the court grants leave to amend so that

Hawkins may file one amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies identified in this order

regarding the denial of access to the courts claim and the due process claim regarding the

vehicle. Hawkins may not include any other claims in his amended complaint. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed because it fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. Hawkins will be given leave to amend, provided that he files his

amended complaint no later than March 31, 2006. The amended complaint 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 the dismissal of the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2006________________ _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02623-SI Document 5 Filed 03/02/06 Page 5 of 5