Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-06072/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-06072-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

MARION STARKS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROWLAND LEVY,

Defendant. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 09-6072 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

On December 30, 2009, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at the San

Francisco County Jail and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. By separate order filed concurrently herewith, plaintiff has been granted

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Plaintiff alleges that in 1996 Rowland Levy, a psychologist appointed to examine

plaintiff in connection with criminal proceedings then pending against plaintiff for burglary,

prepared inaccurate reports for the trial, resulting in plaintiff’s unlawful conviction. Plaintiff

seeks monetary damages and the reversal of the conviction.

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

See 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. See id.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.

Case 3:09-cv-06072-MMC Document 4 Filed 01/21/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 When Bailey addressed the court’s authority to dismiss a “frivolous or malicious”

action prior to service, it did so under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d),

which subsequently was codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) by the Prison Litigation Reform Act

of 1995. Section 1915A, which applies to any civil action filed by a prisoner, similarly

mandates that the court dismiss such action prior to service if the court determines the action

is “frivolous or malicious.” 

2

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action is subject to

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious. See Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021

(5th Cir. 1988).1

 Further, district courts retain broad discretion to control their dockets,

which includes the dismissal of duplicative later-filed actions. See Adams v. California, 487

F.3d 684, 688, 692-94 (9th Cir. 2007). To determine whether a suit is duplicative, and thus

subject to dismissal, the court examines “whether the causes of action and relief sought, as

well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.” Id. at 689. 

In the instant action, plaintiff raises the identical claim for damages that he raised in a

previous action filed in this court, Starks v. San Francisco Police Dep’t, et al., No. C 06-1877

MMC (PR). That action was dismissed on December 18, 2008, when the Court determined

that all of plaintiff’s claims therein, including the damages claim against Rowland Levy,

were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Further, the Court dismissed the

damages claims because plaintiff’s conviction had not been reversed or otherwise found

invalid and, consequently, they were barred by the case of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,

486-87 (1994), which holds that in order to state a claim for damages for an allegedly

unconstitutional conviction or term of imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a plaintiff asserting a

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed or

declared invalid. (Order of Dismissal, filed Dec. 18, 2008 (Docket No. 4) at 2:9-4:8.) As the

claim plaintiff asserts against Rowland Levy herein is identical to the claim previously

dismissed by the Court, the instant claim will be dismissed with prejudice as duplicative.

Additionally, plaintiff’s claim for reversal of the conviction is subject to dismissal

because such claim must be raised by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See

Case 3:09-cv-06072-MMC Document 4 Filed 01/21/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 currently has pending in this court a habeas petition in which he appears to

be challenging the validity of his current custody as the result of the revocation of his

probation stemming from the 1996 conviction. See Starks v. Hennessey, No. C 09-6073

MMC (PR).

3

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (holding any claim by prisoner attacking fact

or duration of custody must be brought by way of petition for writ of habeas corpus). 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim for habeas relief will be dismissed without prejudice to

plaintiff’s bringing his claim in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Trimble v. City of

Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995).2

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s claim for damages is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice as duplicative,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

2. Plaintiff’s claim for habeas relief is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to

plaintiff’s bringing his claim in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The Clerk shall close the file.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 21, 2010 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-06072-MMC Document 4 Filed 01/21/10 Page 3 of 3