Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00806/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00806-0/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\RMW\CR.15\Starr806disheck.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANNON LEE STARR, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, et

al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-0806 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages for alleged civil rights violations. Plaintiff’s

motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons stated below,

the court dismisses the complaint.

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 id. § 1915A(b)(1),

(),/('

Case 5:15-cv-00806-RMW Document 10 Filed 06/12/15 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\RMW\CR.15\Starr806disheck.wpd 2

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

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

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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v.

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

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he was arrested in 1991 for rape. In 1993, plaintiff

was told by the Oakland Police Department that evidence had been accidentally destroyed before

defense counsel could have it independently tested. Ultimately, plaintiff was convicted and

sentenced to a term of 28 years. In April 2011, plaintiff’s defense counsel informed him that she

had discovered that the evidence said to have been destroyed was actually available at the time

of trial, and had not been destroyed until seven years after plaintiff’s conviction – in December

2000. No one at the Oakland Police Department had informed plaintiff prior to the destruction

of the evidence. Plaintiff alleges that the Oakland Police Department deprived KLPRI the

right to a fair trial and requests damages. 

Plaintiff’s complaint essentially seeks to challenge his conviction. In order 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, 486-487 (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. 

When a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must 

consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of

his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can

Case 5:15-cv-00806-RMW Document 10 Filed 06/12/15 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\RMW\CR.15\Starr806disheck.wpd 3

demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Id. at 487. Here,

plaintiff’s claim is essentially a claim that the government failed to preserve evidence, in

violation of California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 489 (1984), and/or, the government

suppressed material evidence, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). In either

case, should plaintiff prove successful in his claim, it would necessarily call into question the

validity of his conviction. As a result, plaintiff underlying claim is barred by Heck. See, e.g.,

Rodriguez v. Kwok, 2014 WL 2110256, at *2-*3 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2014) (Illston, J.) Ciria v.

Rubino, 2008 WL 4287558, at *4-*7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2008) (Chesney, J.).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is barred by Heck. Because no amount of amendment

would cure the deficiencies of the complaint, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate all pending

motions as moot, enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: RONALD M. WHYTE 

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00806-RMW Document 10 Filed 06/12/15 Page 3 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANNON LEE STARR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV15-00806 RMW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on June 12, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Shannon Lee Starr ALJ-123

Alameda County Santa Rita Jail

8-A-1

5325 Broder Boulevard

Dublin, CA 94568

Dated: June 12, 2015

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jackie Lynn Garcia, Deputy Clerk

Case 5:15-cv-00806-RMW Document 10 Filed 06/12/15 Page 4 of 4