Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02608/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02608-0/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

JOE MANUEL LARA, 

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA POLICE

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-2608 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, a prisoner currently incarcerated at Avenal State Prison, has filed

a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages for

allegedly unconstitutional arrest, criminal prosecution and conviction. Among

other things, plaintiff alleges that Santa Clara County prosecutors falsely charged

him and prevented him from obtaining a fair trial, and that his public defenders

were constitutionally ineffective. Plaintiff also alleges that City of Santa Clara

police officers Roy Gutierrez and Shawn Wynn used excessive and unnecessary

force during the course of arresting him.

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

Case 3:07-cv-02608-CRB Document 8 Filed 09/19/07 Page 1 of 6
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

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

"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 state 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. 

Plaintiff's claims challenging/implicating the validity of his arrest,

prosecution and conviction are barred under the rationale of Heck. See Guerrero

Case 3:07-cv-02608-CRB Document 8 Filed 09/19/07 Page 2 of 6
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

The City of Santa Cara and its police department are dismissed because

they cannot be held liable under § 1983 simply on the theory they are responsible

for the actions or omissions of its employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,

1045 (9th Cir. 1989). To impose municipal liability under § 1983 for a violation

3

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). A

judgment in favor of plaintiff in connection with these claims would imply the

invalidity of a state conviction which has not already been invalidated. 

Plaintiff's claims challenging/implicating the validity of his arrest, prosecution

and conviction fail to state a cognizable claim under § 1983 and (along with all

corresponding defendants) 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).

Plaintiff's claim for use of excessive force during the course of his arrest

may not necessarily imply the invalidity of the arrest or conviction and therefore

may not be barred by Heck. See Guerrero, 442 F.3d at 703; Cabrera, 159 F.3d at

380; Smithart, 79 F.3d at 952-53. The claim will proceed against City of Santa

Clara police officers Roy Gutierrez and Shawn Wynn. See Rutherford v. City of

Berkeley, 780 F.2d 1444, 1447 (9th Cir. 1986) (allegation of use of excessive

force by law enforcement officer in effectuating an arrest states a valid claim

under § 1983), overruled on other grounds by Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386

(1989).1

Case 3:07-cv-02608-CRB Document 8 Filed 09/19/07 Page 3 of 6
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

of constitutional rights, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the plaintiff possessed a

constitutional right of which he or she was deprived; (2) that the municipality had

a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's

constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy is the moving force behind the

constitutional violation. See Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 County of Yamhill,

130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997).

4

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall

serve, without prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint in this matter, all

attachments thereto, and copies of this order on City of Santa Clara police

officers Roy Gutierrez and Shawn Wynn. This action will be limited to plaintiff's

claim of excessive force during arrest against these two defendants. All other

claims and defendants are dismissed. 

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as

follows:

a. No later than 90 days from the date of this order, defendants

shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. A motion

for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and

shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and shall

include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the events at

issue. If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by

summary judgment or other dispositive motion, they shall so inform the court

prior to the date their motion is due. All papers filed with the court shall be

served promptly on plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed

with the court and served upon defendants no later than 30 days after defendants

serve plaintiff with the motion. 

Case 3:07-cv-02608-CRB Document 8 Filed 09/19/07 Page 4 of 6
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 5

c. Plaintiff is advised that a motion for summary judgment

under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your

case. Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for

summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there

is no genuine issue of material fact--that is, if there is no real dispute about any

fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary

judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. 

When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is

properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply

rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents,

as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradicts the facts shown in the defendant's

declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material

fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary

judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is

granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. Rand v. Rowland,

154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (App. A).

Plaintiff is also advised that a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) will, if granted, end your

case, albeit without prejudice. You must “develop a record” and present it in

your opposition in order to dispute any “factual record” presented by the

defendants in their motion to dismiss. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120

n.14 (9th Cir. 2003).

d. Defendants shall file a reply brief within 15 days of the date

on which plaintiff serves them with the opposition. 

/

Case 3:07-cv-02608-CRB Document 8 Filed 09/19/07 Page 5 of 6
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 6

e. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the

reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the court so

orders at a later date. 

3. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. No further court order is required before the parties may

conduct discovery.

4. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on

defendants, or defendants' counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing

a true copy of the document to defendants or defendants' counsel.

5. It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must

keep the court and all parties informed of any 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 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Sept. 19, 2007 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.07\Lara, J1.or1.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-02608-CRB Document 8 Filed 09/19/07 Page 6 of 6