Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02842/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02842-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWIGHT WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICES,

ET AL., 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2842 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND AND

DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

(Docket no. 2)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California, filed this pro se civil rights action when he

was incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison. On September 14, 2005, the Court received from

Plaintiff a notice that he now is incarcerated at the California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo. 

Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. In this order the Court reviews

Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismisses the complaint with leave to

amend within thirty days. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff states that on August 18, 2004, police officers used excessive force against him. 

Plaintiff does not state the city in which this occurred, the name of the police force by which the

officers were employed, or whether his current incarceration stems from the events at issue. He

names as defendants the Federal Protective Services and the Office of Homeland Security, and

also names individual officers. He seeks damages for pain and suffering.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

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

Case 3:05-cv-02842-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/06/06 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 2

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). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica

Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

II. Legal Claims

The action cannot proceed because Plaintiff has not provided the Court with the

information necessary to determine whether a cognizable claim for relief is stated. 

First, Plaintiff must identify the city in which the incident occurred and the police force

by whom the officers were employed so that the Court can determine whether the action was

properly filed in this district. 

Next, Plaintiff must clarify whether he is attempting to sue the Federal Protective

Services and the Office of Homeland Security. To the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to sue a

federal agency, damages for personal injury arising or resulting from a negligent or wrongful

act or omission of any federal employee while acting within the scope of his or her office or

employment is available only under the Federal Torts Claim Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-

80 ("FTCA"). The timely filing of an administrative claim is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the

bringing of a suit under the FTCA. See Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir.

2000); Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 640 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2675). This

means that before filing a FTCA claim in federal court, the plaintiff must file an administrative

claim with the proper agency and have it denied by the agency in writing. See Brady, 211 F.3d

at 503; Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 640. Accordingly, Plaintiff must inform the Court whether he is

suing a federal agency under the FTCA and whether he has complied with the administrative

exhaustion requirement. 

Plaintiff also must clarify whether the individual officers he is attempting to sue are state

or federal employees. If Plaintiff alleges the violation of his constitutional rights by state

employees, he must bring suit against them under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. But if he is attempting to

Case 3:05-cv-02842-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/06/06 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 3

sue individual federal officers, his proper remedy is a suit brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 392-97 (1971). While the remedies available under these two

causes of action are identical, different prerequisites to suit could apply. Therefore, Plaintiff

must state the theory under which he intends to proceed.

Finally, Plaintiff must tell the Court whether he was arrested as a result of the incident at

issue. Specifically, whether he was charged with and convicted of resisting arrest. This is

because in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,

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

invalid, a civil rights 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); see Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d

774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996) (applying Heck to Bivens claim). Heck makes it clear that a "cause of

action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional conviction or sentence does not accrue

until the conviction or sentence has been invalidated." Id. at 489-90 (footnote omitted). In

California, a conviction for resisting arrest pursuant to California Penal Code section 148 may be

lawfully obtained only if the officers do not use excessive force in the course of making that arrest. 

Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 696 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). Thus, if a plaintiff has a section

148 conviction based on acts of resistance during the course of arrest, Heck bars claims that the police

officers used excessive force during the course of the arrest. Id. at 697. Therefore, if Plaintiff's

excessive force claim would, if meritorious, imply the invalidity of his state arrest, detention and any

subsequent conviction, this action must be dismissed. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 649

(1997). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, as indicated above. 

Case 3:05-cv-02842-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/06/06 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 4

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint which complies with this order within thirty (30) days

from the date of this order. The amendment must include the caption and civil case number

used in this order and the words "COURT ORDERED AMENDED COMPLAINT" on the first

page. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of the complaint

without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

"[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged

in the amended complaint." London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). 

3. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. 

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(b).

4. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED without prejudice. (Docket no.

2.) The Court will review Plaintiff's request anew should he file an amended complaint which

complies with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 6, 2006

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02842-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/06/06 Page 4 of 4