Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04592/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04592-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

1

City defendants also filed a joinder in County defendants’ motion to dismiss.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL WILLINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, DISTRICT

ATTORNEY JAMES P. FOX, DALY CITY,

CHIEF OF POLICE GARY S. McLANE,

STEVEN DINKELSPIEL, SGT. GRIGGS

(#17), TRACY MARTIN,

Defendants

 /

No. C-04-4592 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS TO DISMISS; VACATING

HEARING

(Docket Nos. 13, 16)

Before the Court are two motions to dismiss plaintiff Darryl Willingham’s complaint:

(1) the motion of defendants County of San Mateo, District Attorney James P. Fox, and

Deputy District Attorney Steven Dinkelspiel (“County defendants”), pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) the motion of City of Daly City,

Chief of Police Gary S. McLane, and Sergeant Griggs (“City defendants”), also pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(6).1

 Plaintiff has filed opposition, to which County defendants and City

defendants have separately replied. Having reviewed the papers filed in support of and in

opposition to the motions, the Court deems the matters appropriate for decision on the

papers, VACATES the hearing scheduled for June 17, 2005, and rules as follows.

Case 3:04-cv-04592-MMC Document 33 Filed 05/31/05 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

Plaintiff also alleges that defendant Tracy Martin (“Martin”), a parole officer, knew

plaintiff had a “right to be released from parole on or before November 8, 2003, but kept

[p]laintiff on parole until November 10, 2003.” (See id.). Martin has not moved to dismiss

plaintiff’s complaint and has, instead, filed an answer. Consequently, plaintiff’s claims

against Martin are not the subject of the instant order.

2

 BACKGROUND

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s claims

arise from his allegation that he was “wrongfully convicted” in 1993 of “sex crimes” against

two women. (See Complaint ¶ 12.) Plaintiff alleges that City defendants, when questioning

plaintiff, never told plaintiff he was a suspect in a rape case and that, had he been told, he

would have sought the assistance of counsel. (See id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff also alleges that,

during the criminal trial, County defendants (1) encouraged jurors to disregard the court

interpreter’s translations in favor of a juror’s translations, (see id. ¶ 13), (2) offered 

improperly-obtained statements of plaintiff that had been obtained by City defendants

during the questioning, thereby “forc[ing]” plaintiff to testify and waive his privilege against

self-incrimination, (see id. ¶ 14), and (3) withheld “certain exculpatory statements” made by

the victims, (see id. ¶ 15). Plaintiff alleges the above-referenced actions resulted in

plaintiff’s receiving an unfair trial. (See id. ¶¶ 12-20.)2

As relief, plaintiff seeks damages and a court order requiring defendants to relieve

plaintiff of any requirement that he register as a sex-offender, to not charge him with a

crime if he fails to register as a sex-offender, and to remove plaintiff’s name from any sexoffender registration or index. (See id., Prayer.) Additionally, plaintiff seeks to “over-turn

the criminal judgments against him.” (See id. ¶ 22.)

DISCUSSION

As noted, plaintiff alleges he was wrongfully convicted. County defendants, joined

by City defendants, argue that plaintiff’s claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477 (1994).

“[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a

Case 3:04-cv-04592-MMC Document 33 Filed 05/31/05 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

conviction or 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 authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal

court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Id. at 486-87. “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. “Thus, 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. Furthermore, “[t]he fact that [the plaintiff] is no

longer in custody and thus may not be able to overturn his prior convictions by means of

habeas corpus does not preclude Heck’s bar.” Guerrero v. Gates, 357 F.3d 911, 917 (9th

Cir. 2004).

 Here, plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights were violated because of actions

taken by County defendants and City defendants, which resulted in plaintiff’s being

deprived of a fair criminal trial and, as a consequence thereof, his subsequent conviction. 

(See Complaint ¶¶ 12-20.) Plaintiff’s claims against the moving defendants, by definition,

fall within the bar set forth in Heck. Indeed, courts have recognized that a § 1983 claim

based on the same types of conduct plaintiff challenges herein necessarily implies the

invalidity of a conviction. See, e.g., Heck, 512 U.S. at 479, 490 (holding claim barred

where plaintiff alleged police engaged in unlawful investigation that led to plaintiff’s arrest,

because claim necessarily implied plaintiff’s conviction was invalid); id. (holding claim

barred where plaintiff alleged prosecutors and/or investigators destroyed exculpatory

evidence, because claim necessarily implied plaintiff’s conviction was invalid); Hamilton v.

Lyons, 74 F. 3d 99, 103 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding claim barred by Heck, where plaintiff

alleged prosecutor introduced as evidence statements obtained in violation of plaintiff’s

right against self-incrimination); Molina v. Kaye, 956 F. Supp. 261, 264 (E.D. N.Y. 1996)

(holding claim barred by Heck, where plaintiff alleged testimony of non-English speaking

Case 3:04-cv-04592-MMC Document 33 Filed 05/31/05 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

3

In light of the Court’s holding on this issue, the Court does not address the

alternative arguments made by County defendants and City defendants.

4

witness was inaccurately translated). Moreover, plaintiff, by seeking as a remedy herein an

order setting aside his conviction and/or relieving him of the collateral consequences of his

conviction, has essentially conceded that a judgment in the instant action in his favor would

necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction. Accordingly, the Court finds plaintiff’s

claims against County defendants and City defendants fall within the scope of Heck.

In his complaint, plaintiff does not allege, as is required to avoid the bar set forth in

Heck, that his conviction has been reversed or otherwise set aside. Consequently,

plaintiff’s claims against County defendants and City defendants are subject to dismissal. 

In his opposition, plaintiff admits he intends to use discovery obtained in the instant case to

support a petition for a writ of error coram nobis to set aside his conviction, (see Pl.’s Opp.,

filed May 2, 2005, at 11:17 - 18:1), thus conceding that he cannot, in an amended

complaint, allege that his conviction has been set aside. Under the circumstances,

dismissal of the claims barred by Heck without leave to amend is proper.3

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the motions to dismiss filed by County defendants

and by City defendants are hereby GRANTED, and plaintiff’s claims against such

defendants are hereby DISMISSED without leave to amend, and without prejudice to

refiling in the event plaintiff’s conviction is set aside.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2005 /s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04592-MMC Document 33 Filed 05/31/05 Page 4 of 4