Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04037/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04037-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SPENCER R. BRASURE,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04037-JST (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Spencer R. Brasure, an inmate on death row at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se 

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining about various problems in his criminal 

case and in the California process for reviewing capital convictions and sentences. He alleges that 

California's system for review of convictions and sentences in death penalty cases is 

unconstitutionally slow and that he has received ineffective assistance of counsel. His complaint 

is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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. See 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 seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 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). 

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

Case 3:14-cv-04037-JST Document 17 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

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. 

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 alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 

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

B. Legal Claims

The court notes that plaintiff's complaint is similar to several complaints that have been filed by 

other death row inmates. See Duff v. California, N.D. Cal. Case No. C 14-4036 EMC (dismissed 

as frivolous); Smith v. California, N.D. Cal. Case No. C 14-3506 PJH (dismissed under Heck and 

for failure to state a claim); Theodore Shove v. Brown, N. D. Cal. Case No. C 12-211 RMW 

(dismissed for failure to state a claim and affirmed on appeal); Paul Bolin v. Brown, N. D. Cal. 

Case No. C 12-637 PJH (transferred to Eastern District of California, which ultimately dismissed 

complaint under Younger and Heck, and for failure to state a claim).

1

 

Indeed, the complaint in this action repeats claims that Mr. Brasure made in an action he 

commenced in 2012 in the Central District of California, Spencer Brasure v. Brown, C. D. Cal. 

 

1

See also Jones v. Chappell, No. CV 09-02158-CJC, 2014 WL 3567365, at *8 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 

2014), appeal dismissed (Dec. 1, 2014) (“California's death penalty system is so plagued by 

inordinate and unpredictable delay that the death sentence is actually carried out against only a 

trivial few of those sentenced to death. . . . For all practical purposes . . . a sentence of death in 

California is a sentence of life imprisonment with the remote possibility of death—a sentence no 

rational legislature or jury could ever impose.”).

Case 3:14-cv-04037-JST Document 17 Filed 01/23/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

Case No. C 12-CV-1027-UA-DUTY. In that case, the court denied plaintiff's in forma pauperis 

application on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction; the complaint failed to state a claim; and the 

complaint sought monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. This Court also 

notes that plaintiff filed a pro se habeas petition in this court, Case No. C 13-080156 EMC. The 

case was transferred to the Central District of California, as that is the district of conviction. The 

habeas petition did not specifically challenge his conviction but was similar to the instant 

complaint and challenged California's procedures of prosecuting and appealing death penalty 

cases.

To the extent that plaintiff wishes to challenge his conviction he must file a federal habeas 

petition in the appropriate court and raise claims that have been fully exhausted in state court. To 

the extent that plaintiff wishes to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or 

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

or sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 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. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). A claim for damages 

bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not 

cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487. As no amount of amendment would cure the deficiencies of 

the complaint, this action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim and as frivolous as 

plaintiff has filed other similar actions. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th

Cir. 1995) (The district court may dismiss under § 1915 "a complaint 'that merely repeats pending 

or previously litigated claims.'"). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:14-cv-04037-JST Document 17 Filed 01/23/15 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous and for 

failure to state a claim. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04037-JST Document 17 Filed 01/23/15 Page 4 of 4