Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01249/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01249-2/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

KEVIN LEE McCULLOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEAN WHENT, et. al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-1249-TEH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff, a detainee, filed this pro se civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The first amended complaint was 

dismissed with leave to amend and Plaintiff has filed a second

amended complaint. 

I

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of 

cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity 

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

1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss 

the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint 

“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally 

construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:16-cv-01249-TEH Document 10 Filed 06/29/16 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

1990).

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

II

Plaintiff alleges that police officers conducted an illegal 

search and other illegal acts that led to his arrest.

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.

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). 

Federal courts should not enjoin pending state criminal 

prosecutions absent a showing of the state's bad faith or 

harassment, or a showing that the statute challenged is 

Case 3:16-cv-01249-TEH Document 10 Filed 06/29/16 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

"flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional 

prohibitions." Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, 53-54 (cost, anxiety and 

inconvenience of criminal defense not kind of special 

circumstances or irreparable harm that would justify federal 

court intervention; statute must be unconstitutional in every 

"clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever manner" it is 

applied). 

Abstention may be inappropriate in the "extraordinary 

circumstance" that (1) the party seeking relief in federal court 

does not have an adequate remedy at law and will suffer 

irreparable injury if denied equitable relief, see Mockaitis v. 

Harcleroad, 104 F.3d 1522, 1528 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Younger, 

401 U.S. at 43-44), or (2) the state tribunal is incompetent by 

reason of bias, see Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577-79 

(1973). A party who alleges bias must overcome a presumption of 

honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators. See

Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Cal., 67 F.3d 708, 713 

(9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). 

Plaintiff argues that several police officers falsified 

police reports, committed perjury, and lied to a magistrate judge 

in order to get a search warrant which led to his arrest. For 

relief in this action, Plaintiff previously sought the police 

officers to be found guilty and fired and he seeks four million 

dollars in damages. Plaintiff is currently being held in Santa 

Rita County Jail. It is not clear if the criminal prosecution is 

ongoing or if he has already been convicted.

The first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to 

amend to provide more information. Plaintiff was told to 

Case 3:16-cv-01249-TEH Document 10 Filed 06/29/16 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

indicate if there was an ongoing prosecution or if he had been 

convicted. He was told that if he had been convicted he must 

show why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Heck. If 

the prosecution is ongoing he was told that he must discuss why 

Younger abstention is not appropriate to the extent he seeks this 

Court to intervene. 

The second amended complaint has failed to cure the 

deficiencies of the prior complaints. If Plaintiff has already 

been convicted he has not demonstrated that the conviction has 

been reversed or expunged. To the extent that the prosecution 

may be ongoing Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate extraordinary 

circumstance to warrant federal court intervention. Because 

Plaintiff has already been provided several opportunities to 

amend and allowing any further amendment would be futile this 

case is dismissed without leave to amend. If Plaintiff is not 

convicted or the conviction is reversed or expunged he may refile this case.

III

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as 

follows:

1. This action is DISMISSED. 

2. The Clerk shall close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/28/2016

________________________

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.16\McCullom1249.dis.docx

Case 3:16-cv-01249-TEH Document 10 Filed 06/29/16 Page 4 of 4