Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07624/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07624-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT J. ALEXANDER-CAMPOS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

W. DORSHKIND, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 18-cv-07624-PJH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND 

Plaintiff, a detainee, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION 

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). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 

dismiss any claims which 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. 

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

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

of the 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, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) 

(citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed 

Case 4:18-cv-07624-PJH Document 12 Filed 02/28/19 Page 1 of 5
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 Californi

a

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, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme 

Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal 

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 

allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

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). 

LEGAL CLAIMS 

Plaintiff seeks money damages for an illegal search and 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. 

In Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007), the Court held that the “Heck rule for 

deferred accrual is called into play only when there exists ‘a conviction or sentence that 

has not been . . . invalidated,’ that is to say, an ‘outstanding criminal judgment.’” Id. at 

Case 4:18-cv-07624-PJH Document 12 Filed 02/28/19 Page 2 of 5
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 Californi

a

391-93 (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87). The Heck rule delays accrual only if there is 

an existing conviction on the date the statute of limitations begins to run, which in the 

case of wrongful arrest or wrongful imprisonment claims is when the plaintiff's 

confinement is no longer without legal process, but rather becomes a confinement 

pursuant to legal process – that is, for example, when he or she is bound over by a 

magistrate or arraigned on charges. Id. at 389-90. The Court stated that the contention 

that “an action which would impugn an anticipated future conviction cannot be brought 

until that conviction occurs and is set aside” goes “well beyond Heck” and rejected it. Id. 

at 393 (italics in original). Although the Court was only considering when the statute of 

limitations began running on a false arrest/false imprisonment claim, the discussion 

quoted suggests that Heck does not apply if there is no extant conviction – for instance, if 

plaintiff has only been arrested or charged. 

If a plaintiff files a § 1983 false arrest claim before he or she is convicted, or files 

any other claim related to rulings that likely will be made in a pending or anticipated 

criminal trial, it is within the power of the district court, and accords with common practice, 

to stay the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended. 

Id. at 393-94. If the plaintiff is then convicted, and if the stayed civil suit would impugn 

that conviction, Heck requires dismissal; otherwise, the case may proceed. Id. at 394. 

Plaintiff states that he was illegally arrested for driving while displaying symptoms 

of a mental health patient on prescribed medication. He also argues that his car was 

illegally searched. Plaintiff appears to be still detained for this arrest and seeks money 

damages. Plaintiff can only proceed with this federal civil rights action if the underlying 

charges are dismissed or a conviction is reversed. The complaint is dismissed with leave 

to amend to address the legal standards above and describe the current situation with 

the prosecution. The court will stay the case if the charges are still pending. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the 

standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed no later than March 29, 

Case 4:18-cv-07624-PJH Document 12 Filed 02/28/19 Page 3 of 5
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 Californi

a

2019, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the 

words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint 

completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he 

wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may 

not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to file an 

amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this case. 

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed 

“Notice of 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 for failure to prosecute 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 28, 2019 

 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

 

Case 4:18-cv-07624-PJH Document 12 Filed 02/28/19 Page 4 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT J. ALEXANDER-CAMPOS,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

W. DORSHKIND, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 18-cv-07624-PJH 

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 February 28, 2019, 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. 

Robert J. Alexander-Campos ID: AYC-552

Santa Rita Jail 

5325 Broder Blvd. 

Dublin, CA 94568 

Dated: February 28, 2019 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

Kelly Collins, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

Case 4:18-cv-07624-PJH Document 12 Filed 02/28/19 Page 5 of 5