Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01633/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01633-0/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

1

 “Doc.#” refers to the docket number of filings in this case.

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daniel Gonzalez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Lori Giedraitis, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1633-PHX-MHM (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Daniel Gonzalez, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex, Echo

Unit, in Tucson, Arizona, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and paid the $350.00 filing fee. (Doc.# 1.)1

 The Court will dismiss the Complaint

and this action, without prejudice, pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 489 (1994).

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against

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

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised

claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the

allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint

before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000)

Case 2:07-cv-01633-MHM--ECV Document 3 Filed 10/25/07 Page 1 of 5
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

 Plaintiff contends Vaughn could not have seen into his car at night with the tinting

and that she therefore lied or made a false report. (Doc.# 1 at 3E.)

- 2 -

(en banc). Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims have not yet accrued, this

action will be dismissed without prejudice. 

II. Complaint

Plaintiff alleges five counts for alleged violations of his Fourth, Sixth, Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights. He sues Amy Vaughn, a Denny’s Restaurant employee;

Phoenix Police Officers Lori Giedraitis, Sergeant Lain Caldwell, Chris Normandin, Derald

Rine, Michael Chase, William Campbell, Criminalist Janet Anderson, Will Arnold, Mike

Campbell, Elizabeth Ciato, John Musselman, Jonathon Noble, Anil Solanky, Mark Stoltman,

and Gayle Swanson; and Maricopa County Deputy Attorney S. Rene McGregor. Plaintiff

seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Plaintiff alleges the following facts: The night of December 2, 2004, Plaintiff was

sitting in his parked car in a Phoenix Denny’s Restaurant parking lot talking on his cell

phone. (Doc.# 1 at 3.) The windows of Plaintiff’s car, which had dark tinting, were closed.

(Id.) Vaughn notified Phoenix police that Plaintiff was passed out in his car.2

 (Id.) Plaintiff

contends that he was talking on his cell phone when someone, who turned out to be Phoenix

Police Officer Giedraitis, attempted to open his car door. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that

Giedraitis could not see into his car and he implies that he could not see who was trying to

open his door due to the tinting and darkness. (Id. at 3E.) Plaintiff, who suffers from panic

attacks, panicked and drove out of the parking lot fearing an attack of some kind against him.

Plaintiff contends that Officer Rine, and other officers, falsely claimed that Plaintiff assaulted

Rine by attempting to run Rine down with his car; Plaintiff contends that he was blinded by

floodlights and that he was an “automaton” due to his fear of the officers. (See, e.g., id. at

3C.) Plaintiff was stopped and physically subdued resulting in abrasions and bruises to him.

Plaintiff was arrested and transported to the police station where he asked for counsel and

invoked his right to remain silent, but officers continued to question him about taking a

Case 2:07-cv-01633-MHM--ECV Document 3 Filed 10/25/07 Page 2 of 5
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

 See http://test.azcorrections.gov/isearch/inmate_datasearch/results.aspx?

InmateNumber=163943&LastName=GONZALEZ&FNMI=D&SearchType=SearchInet.

4

 See n.3, supra.

- 3 -

breath test. (Doc.# 1 at 5A.) He contends that he only consented to take a breath test after

Giedraitis “threatened” to obtain a warrant if he refused. (Id. at 5A, 5B.) 

Plaintiff was criminally charged and he retained private counsel, James Simpson, to

represent him. (See id. at 5B.) Plaintiff was convicted after entering a plea of no contest of

two counts of aggravated driving while intoxicated, aggravated assault and aggravated

driving under the influence.3

 He was sentenced to seven years incarceration and two years

probation sometime prior to June 10, 2005, when he was admitted to the Arizona Department

of Corrections.4

Plaintiff contends that several Defendants falsified evidence regarding his actions the

night of December 2, 2004, as well as collusion between Vaughn and Giedraitis and

entrapment. (Id. at 3G, 3H, 5D, 5E.) Plaintiff also alleges that his arrest was arbitrary and

capricious in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id. at 5C.) He alleges his Fifth

Amendment rights were violated by continued questioning after he invoked his right to

counsel and to remain silent. (Id. at 5A, 5B.) He further alleges that the assault when he was

arrested and his sentence constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth

Amendment. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that Simpson rendered ineffective assistance to him,

and that his no contest plea was coerced, in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. (Id. at

4, 5B.) 

III. Heck v. Humphrey Bar

Plaintiff filed this action using the court-approved form to seek relief for violations

of his constitutional rights by officials acting under color of state law pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. In his Complaint, Plaintiff seeks damages and/or reduction of his sentence based on

violations of his constitutional rights in connection with his arrest and conviction. Assuming

the facts alleged by Plaintiff against each of the Defendants rises to the level of a

Case 2:07-cv-01633-MHM--ECV Document 3 Filed 10/25/07 Page 3 of 5
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 -

constitutional violation, any right to damages, or other relief, under § 1983 on his claims has

not yet accrued. 

 A civil rights claim brought pursuant to § 1983 that, if successful, would necessarily

undermine the validity of a conviction or the duration of a sentence may not be brought

before the prisoner has obtained a “favorable termination” of the underlying conviction; a

prisoner’s sole federal remedy to challenge the validity or duration of his confinement is a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Docken

v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024, 1031 (9th Cir. 2004). That is, a civil rights claim under § 1983

does not accrue unless or until the prisoner has obtained a “favorable termination”of the

underlying conviction, parole or disciplinary action. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,

489 (1994); Docken, 393 F.3d at 1031. Under the “favorable termination” rule:

In order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by action whose unlawfulness would

render a conviction of sentence invalid, a § 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 . . . or called into question

by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus . . .

Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. Without such a showing of a “favorable termination,” a person’s

cause of action under § 1983 has not yet accrued. Id. at 489. The “favorable termination”

rule extends to prisoner challenges to state disciplinary and parole procedures for damages

where success thereon would “necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its

duration.” Osborne v. District Attorney’s Office for 3d Jud. Dist., 423 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th

Cir. 2005) (citing Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005)); see Edwards v. Balisok, 520

U.S. 641, 646 (1997) (calculation of good time credits); Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023

(9th Cir. 1997) (parole revocation proceedings). Thus, success on any claim for damages

pursuant to § 1983 that would necessarily imply the invalidity of confinement, or its duration,

does not accrue “and may not be brought” unless and until the underlying conviction,

sentence or parole decision is reversed. Only then may a plaintiff properly seek damages

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Case 2:07-cv-01633-MHM--ECV Document 3 Filed 10/25/07 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

In each of his counts, Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants violated his constitutional

rights in connection with his arrest and/or conviction. Assuming each of these allegations

rises to the level of a constitutional violation–the only basis for this Court’s subject matter

jurisdiction in this case–success on those claims in this action would necessarily undermine

the validity of Plaintiff’s conviction and/or the duration of his sentence. For that reason,

Plaintiff must obtain a “favorable termination” of the underlying conviction and/or sentence

before he may seek relief pursuant to § 1983 on his claims. Because Plaintiff has not yet

done so, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Complaint and this action are dismissed without prejudice. 

(2) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 17th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01633-MHM--ECV Document 3 Filed 10/25/07 Page 5 of 5