Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00984/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00984-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RUSSELL KERSHAW,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-00984-BLF 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DENYING 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING 

CASE

[Re: ECF 4]

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal 

denying as frivolous Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing this action. 

See ECF 4. 

Plaintiff brought suit after being arrested and convicted of malicious mischief. Compl. at 

4, ECF 1. On September 29, 2015, Plaintiff entered Subway and “made a mess on a tile floor with 

feces.” Id. at 6. According to Plaintiff, his “prank[]” was a small claims matter and not a criminal 

incident. Id. As a result, Plaintiff filed this § 1983 action alleging that his criminal conviction 

violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 2, 6. 

Under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Plaintiff must allege that his 

criminal conviction has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid or called into question by a writ 

of habeas corpus in order to seek damages under § 1983. Plaintiff did not do this, and Judge 

Grewal recommended dismissing this action as frivolous. 

No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed and the deadline to 

object has elapsed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (deadline for objections is fourteen days after 

being served with report and recommendation); Certificate of Service, ECF 5 (Plaintiff served 

Case 5:16-cv-00984-BLF Document 6 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 2
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 California

with Report and Recommendation by mail on March 7, 2016).

Ordinarily, the Court would allow Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, liberal leave to 

amend. See, e.g., Soto v. First Student, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-03907-LHK, 2012 WL 1413431, at 

*1 (N.D. Cal. April 23, 2012). However, in this case, Plaintiff had fourteen days to file an 

objection to the Report and Recommendation and no objection was filed. Plaintiff’s complaint 

does not allege a valid cause of action, and by not objecting to the Report and Recommendation, 

Plaintiff has not given the Court any reason to believe that he could state a valid cause of action. 

Accordingly, the Court finds there is no need to provide Plaintiff leave to amend. See Khan v. 

Bush, 93-cv-1342-FEL, 1993 WL 128083 (N.D. Cal. April 16, 1993) (“While pro se plaintiffs 

should be given liberal leave to amend, there is no need to provide an opportunity to amend if it is 

clear that no amendment can cure the defects in the complaint.”).

1

 

Thus, the Court finds the Report and Recommendation correct, well-reasoned and 

thorough, and adopts it in every respect. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s application to 

proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSES this case as frivolous.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

 

1 Moreover, should Plaintiff believe that he can state valid cause of action, he has the option of 

seeking relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Case 5:16-cv-00984-BLF Document 6 Filed 03/22/16 Page 2 of 2