Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00155/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00155-0/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\sj.jf\cr.07\Russell155dis 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERBERT RUSSELL, JR.

Plaintiff,

 v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-0155 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

NO FILING FEE IS DUE

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of California, the Deputy District Attorney and the

Deputy Public Defender assigned to his underlying state court criminal proceeding. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was unjustly charged with assault and convicted by a prejudiced

jury. Plaintiff was sentenced to twenty-five years-to-life plus an additional ten years in

state prison. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims are barred under Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). Accordingly, the complaint will be

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

\\\

\\\

**Original filed 2/2/07**

Case 5:07-cv-00155-JF Document 3 Filed 02/02/07 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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Russell155dis 2

DISCUSSION

A. 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 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person

acting under the color of state law committed a violation of a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Pro se

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696,

699 (9th Cir. 1990).

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff contends that he was unjustly charged with assault and convicted by a

prejudiced jury. Plaintiff was sentenced to twenty-five years-to-life plus an additional ten

years in state prison. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and his release from prison with

an apology. See Complaint at 2-4. However, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims

are barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

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 demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been

invalidated. Id. at 487. In order to recover damages for an alleged 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

Case 5:07-cv-00155-JF Document 3 Filed 02/02/07 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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Russell155dis 3

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

Id. at 486-487. 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. 

Heck makes it clear that a § 1983 “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). Any such claim is not cognizable

and therefore should be dismissed. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 649 (1997);

Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (claim barred by Heck

may be dismissed sua sponte without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §1915).

Heck generally bars claims challenging the validity of an arrest, prosecution or

conviction. See Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 703 (9th Cir. 2006) (Heck barred

plaintiff’s claims of wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution and conspiracy among police

officers to bring false charges against him); Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d

374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998) (Heck barred plaintiff’s false arrest and imprisonment claims

until conviction was invalidated); Smithart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir. 1996)

(Heck barred plaintiff’s claims that defendants lacked probable cause to arrest him and

brought unfounded criminal charges against him). It also bars claims which “necessarily

imply” the invalidity of a conviction. See, e.g., Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039,

1049 (9th Cir. 2002) (prisoner’s Sixth Amendment claim of denial of access to counsel

while a pretrial detainee barred by Heck because claim would necessarily imply invalidity

of subsequent conviction). 

Here, Plaintiff alleges that his assault conviction was unjust and that the jury was

prejudiced against him. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and his release from state

prison. Plaintiff’s success in this action would necessarily invalidate the underlying

criminal conviction and is barred under Heck. Accordingly, the instant complaint is

dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling a new complaint in a new civil rights

action if his conviction is later invalidated.

\\\

Case 5:07-cv-00155-JF Document 3 Filed 02/02/07 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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Russell155dis 4

CONCLUSION 

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice because Plaintiff’s claims

are barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). In light of the

dismissal, no filing fee is due. The Clerk shall terminate any pending motions and close

the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

2/1/07

Case 5:07-cv-00155-JF Document 3 Filed 02/02/07 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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Russell155dis 5

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Herbert Russell, Jr. 

T-72288

Salinas Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 1060

Soledad, CA 93960-1060 

Case 5:07-cv-00155-JF Document 3 Filed 02/02/07 Page 5 of 5