Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05181/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05181-0/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

27

28

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\White181dis 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY L. WHITE, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

KAMALA HARRIS, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-5181 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket Nos. 2, 4)

Plaintiff, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, has filed the instant civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, the District Attorney and

Assistant District Attorney, are violating his constitutional rights in the course of his current

prosecution on state criminal charges in San Francisco Superior Court. Plaintiff seeks money

damages and injunctive relief. The Court will DISMISS the complaint without prejudice. 

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. 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

*Original filed 4/3/07

Case 5:06-cv-05181-JF Document 6 Filed 04/03/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\White181dis 2

seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),

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

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

In order to recover damages for harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would

render a conviction or sentence invalid, a plaintiff alleging a violation of § 1983 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. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages based upon a conviction or sentence that has not

been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. See id. at 487. Heck also bars claims, such

as those raised here, which necessarily implicate the validity of pending criminal charges. See

Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). A civil claim which necessarily

implicates the validity of pending criminal charges does not accrue until after one has succeeded

in the criminal realm. See id. (citing Heck). Plaintiff claims that defendants are violating his

federal constitutional rights in their prosecution of him; if proved true, these claims would call

into question the validity of his pending charges in state court. Accordingly, this action is barred

until Plaintiff’s state court charges have been reversed, expunged, set aside or otherwise called

into question.

With respect to Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, 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). Younger abstention is required when: (1) state proceedings,

judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve important state interests; and (3)

the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional issue. See

Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). The

state proceedings must be pending, not merely available, and plaintiffs must be seeking relief

that would interfere in some manner with the state court litigation. See Green v. City of Tucson,

255 F.3d 1086, 1094 (9th Cir. 2001). The rationale of Younger applies throughout appellate

Case 5:06-cv-05181-JF Document 6 Filed 04/03/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\White181dis 3

proceedings, requiring that state appellate review of a state court judgment be exhausted before

federal court intervention is permitted, see Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 607-11

(1975). Because Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in his ongoing state criminal prosecution,

abstention is appropriate under Younger. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is

denied. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. In light

of this dismissal, Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (docket nos. 2, 4) are

DENIED. No filing fee is due. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 4/3/07 JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-05181-JF Document 6 Filed 04/03/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\White181dis 4

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Larry L. White

# 2214748/ 3A-19

P.O. Box 67 

San Bruno, CA 94066

Case 5:06-cv-05181-JF Document 6 Filed 04/03/07 Page 4 of 4