Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01181/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01181-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STACEY E. RILEY, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

BRANDON SMITH, et al, 

 Defendant(s).

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-1181 TEH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket no. 2)

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at the Santa Rita County Jail, in Dublin,

California, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

seeking damages for the allegedly unconstitutional actions of police officers from

Berkeley, California in pursuing rape charges against Plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts

that these false criminal charges resulted in a hung jury and that he is currently

incarcerated pending retrial of the matter. Plaintiff also seeks to proceed in forma

pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (docket no. 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). The court must identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

Case 3:07-cv-01181-TEH Document 3 Filed 03/07/07 Page 1 of 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 2

"is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. 

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

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

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States

was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting

under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

In order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

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

render a 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. 

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (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.

When a prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must

therefore 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. See id. Heck bars claims which necessarily

implicate the validity of pending criminal charges. See Harvey v. Waldron, 210

F.3d 1008, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). A civil claim which necessarily implicates the

validity of pending criminal charges does not accrue until after one has succeeded

Case 3:07-cv-01181-TEH Document 3 Filed 03/07/07 Page 2 of 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

 1And to whatever extent Plaintiff seeks to challenge either the fact or

duration of his confinement, his sole remedy is to file a petition for writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after exhausting state judicial remedies. See

Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998). Any such claim therefore is

dismissed without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d at 586. 

3

in the criminal realm. See id. (citing Heck). 

A judgment in favor of the Plaintiff here would imply the invalidity of

pending criminal charges against him. The instant allegations therefore fail to

state a cognizable claim under § 1983 and must be DISMISSED without

prejudice. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 649 (1997); Trimble v. City of

Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995). 1

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis

(docket no. 2) is DENIED and the instant allegations are DISMISSED without

prejudice to reasserting them in a new complaint if a cause of action accrues.

The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order, terminate all

pending motions as moot and close the file.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 03/06/07 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01181-TEH Document 3 Filed 03/07/07 Page 3 of 3