Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03466/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03466-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY ESCARSEGA,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-3466-JFM (PC)

vs.

CITY OF STOCKTON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. Plaintiff, the only party to appear in this action, has consented to proceed before a

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28

U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee

in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will

direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account

and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly

payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust

account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court

Case 2:09-cv-03466-JFM Document 8 Filed 03/29/10 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

 Exhibits appended to a complaint are a part thereof for all purposes. See Fed. R. Civ. 1

P. 10(c). 

2

each time the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his constitutional rights

by subjecting him to an unlawful search and seizure of both his property and his person, and by

subjecting him to an unwarranted x-ray and forced ingestion of a “liquid laxative.” Complaint,

filed December 15, 2009, at 4. It appears from exhibits attached to the complaint that plaintiff

was charged in criminal proceedings in connection with the events described in the complaint. 

1

In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the United States Supreme Court held

that a suit for damages on a civil rights claim concerning an allegedly unconstitutional

conviction or imprisonment cannot be maintained absent proof “that the conviction or sentence

has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state

Case 2:09-cv-03466-JFM Document 8 Filed 03/29/10 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

3

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.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486. The rule

announced in Heck applies equally to ongoing criminal proceedings that have not concluded with

an acquittal. See Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Under Heck and its progeny, the court is required to determine whether a

judgment in plaintiff’s favor in this case would necessarily invalidate the invalidity of any

conviction or sentence that flowed from the criminal proceedings that followed the events

complained of. Id. If it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can show

that he was acquitted of the charges or, if convicted, that the conviction or sentence has been

invalidated. This court finds that plaintiff’s action implicates the validity of criminal proceedings

against plaintiff, and that plaintiff has not shown that the criminal proceedings ended with an

acquittal or that any resulting conviction has been invalidated. Accordingly, this action must be

dismissed without prejudice. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. at 486-87.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the

Sheriff of San Joaquin County filed concurrently herewith.

3. This action is dismissed without prejudice. 

DATED: March 29, 2010.

12;esca3466.dm

Case 2:09-cv-03466-JFM Document 8 Filed 03/29/10 Page 3 of 3