Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00695/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00695-3/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

15-cv-695 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

ANTHONY SMITH, 

Plaintiff,

v.

PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE OF

ALAMEDA COUNTY, 

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. 15-cv-695 LB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

[Re: ECF Nos. 20-24]

INTRODUCTION

Anthony Smith, an inmate currently at the Salinas Valley State Prison, has filed this pro se

prisoner's civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed his complaint and

dismissed it with leave to amend. The court extended the deadline for an amended complaint

several times, so that Mr. Smith eventually had more than three months to prepare his amended

complaint. Mr. Smith has filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 20) and several other documents

(ECF Nos. 21-24) which the court construes to be amendments to the amended complaint. His

amended complaint as amended is now before the court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This

order dismisses the action without prejudice to Mr. Smith’s filing a new action for a writ of habeas

corpus and without prejudice to Mr. Smith’s filing a new civil rights action if he ever has his

convictions set aside.

Case 3:15-cv-00695-LB Document 25 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 5
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

15-cv-695 LB

ORDER 2

STATEMENT

Before turning to the allegations of the amended complaint as amended, it is helpful to describe

three convictions Mr. Smith as suffered that form the basis for his claims. Mr. Smith was convicted

in Alameda County Superior Court in 2002 of vehicle theft; on March 15, 2002, he received a

sentence of one year and four months for that offense. (ECF No. 20 at 4.) Mr. Smith was convicted

in Alameda County Superior Court in 2007 of first degree residential burglary, and was found to

have suffered five prior serious felony convictions and three prior prison terms; he was sentenced to

a total term of 38 years to life in prison. (ECF No. 21 at 4.) A state court docket sheet shows that

Mr. Smith appealed from that conviction, see People v. Smith, Cal. Ct. App. No. A119777; his

conviction was affirmed on March 16, 2009, and the California Supreme Court denied review on

May 20, 2009. In 2008, Mr. Smith faced additional criminal charges, including robbery with prior

convictions, in a separate case in Alameda County Superior Court. (See ECF No. 24 at 5.) A state

court docket sheet shows that Mr. Smith appealed from a conviction in that case, see People v.

Smith, Cal. Ct. App. No. A127404; his conviction was affirmed on August 24, 2011, with a limited

remand for a sentence correction, and the California Supreme Court denied review on November 16,

2011. (The appellate history for the burglary and robbery convictions was obtained by using the

docket numbers provided on the paperwork from Mr. Smith and searching the docket sheets

available at www.appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov.) 

Mr. Smith’s filings very difficult to understand, but it is clear that he is seeking damages and

possibly other relief based on problems that occurred during several of his criminal cases. In his

amended complaint, Mr. Smith alleged that the judge and prosecutor violated his rights in the

criminal case that led to his 2002 conviction for vehicle theft. (ECF No. 20.) He challenges the

sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction in that case, and alleges that the prosecutor and

judge did not properly advise him regarding the plea. Mr. Smith alleged that the vehicle theft

conviction “is what eligible-izes the 3 strikes law, and without it, I am not suited for the 3 strikes.” 

(Id. at 2 (errors in source).) 

Mr. Smith also filed several other documents that the court construes to be amendments to his

amended complaint. In a document entitled “quick minute,” Mr. Smith alleged errors in his 2007

Case 3:15-cv-00695-LB Document 25 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 5
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

15-cv-695 LB

ORDER 3

burglary case, i.e., that there was a double jeopardy violation and an unlawful search and seizure. 

(ECF No. 21.) In a document entitled “judicial notice,” Mr. Smith appeared to challenge the

sufficiency of the evidence to support the 2007 burglary conviction and his exercise of his Faretta

rights. (ECF No. 22.) He requested damages and injunctive relief from his confinement. (Id. at 5,

6.) He also submitted a copy of his “petition for writ of habeas corpus and mandate” filed in

Alameda County Superior Court in 2009 in which he alleged errors in his state court prosecution for

burglary. (ECF No. 23.) Mr. Smith also filed a document entitled both “update and addressance”

and “continuance of amended complaint and request for extension.” (ECF No. 24 (errors in

source).) In that document, he complained that court and jail limitations were impeding his exercise

of his Faretta rights in the 2008 robbery case in Alameda County Superior Court. (ECF No. 24 at 5-

8.) In that filing, Mr. Smith also sought an extension of time to file further claims pertaining to his

criminal cases. 

ANALYSIS

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of 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

which 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. at § 1915A(b). Pro se

complaints must be liberally construed. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 

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 violation was

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988).

The amended complaint, as amended, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Mr. Smith alleges claims for damages for constitutional violations that occurred in his prosecutions

for vehicle theft, burglary and robbery. The Heck rule precludes Mr. Smith from suing for damages

or equitable relief at this time for the alleged constitutional violations in connection with his

criminal trials. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), held that a plaintiff cannot bring a civil

Case 3:15-cv-00695-LB Document 25 Filed 09/04/15 Page 3 of 5
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

15-cv-695 LB

ORDER 4

rights action for damages for a wrongful conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by

actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, unless that conviction or

sentence already has been determined to be wrongful. See id. at 486-87. Although the Heck rule

initially was announced with regard to an action for damages, the Supreme Court has since clarified

that Heck applies when equitable relief is sought. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81 (2005). 

A conviction or sentence may be determined to be wrongful by, for example, being reversed on

appeal or being set aside when a state or federal court issues a writ of habeas corpus. See Heck, 512

U.S. at 486-87. The Heck rule also prevents a person from bringing an action that -- even if it does

not directly challenge the conviction or sentence -- would imply that the conviction or sentence was

invalid. The practical importance of this rule is that a plaintiff cannot attack his conviction in a civil

rights action for damages or equitable relief; the decision must have been successfully attacked

before the civil rights action is filed. 

Heck bars Mr. Smith’s claims for alleged constitutional violations in the criminal proceedings

against him that led to his convictions for vehicle theft, burglary and robbery. His causes of action

for damages will not accrue unless and until Mr. Smith’s convictions are set aside. Mr. Smith has

not alleged that any of the three convictions has been set aside, and all indications are that none of

them have been set aside. His allegation that the 2002 vehicle theft conviction made him eligible for

three strikes sentencing in the burglary case shows that the vehicle theft conviction was never set

aside. His appeals from the 2007 burglary conviction and 2008 robbery conviction were

unsuccessful. He remains in prison. There is no reason to grant Mr. Smith further leave to amend

because further amendment would be futile due to the Heck rule.. 

Mr. Smith requested a further extension of the deadline for his amended complaint, apparently so

he can draft additional claims regarding his criminal cases. A further extension of the deadline will

not be granted because (a) Mr. Smith has already had more than four months to prepare his amended

complaint and (b) additional challenges to his convictions also would be barred by the Heck rule. 

Mr. Smith’s motion for an extension of the deadline to file an amended complaint is DENIED. 

(ECF No. 24.)

Case 3:15-cv-00695-LB Document 25 Filed 09/04/15 Page 4 of 5
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

15-cv-695 LB

ORDER 5

If Mr. Smith wants to challenge a state court conviction in federal court and has not already done

so, he must file a petition for writ of habeas corpus because a petition for writ of habeas corpus is the

exclusive method by which he may challenge a state court conviction in this court. Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Mr. Smith should be aware of two important limits. Before a

state court prisoner may file a federal habeas petition, he must exhaust state judicial remedies, either

on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available

with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every issue he seeks to raise in federal court.

 See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A),(c); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981). A federal habeas

petition must be filed before the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations deadline in 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

If Mr. Smith ever has any of his convictions set aside, he then may file a new civil rights action

in which he can assert claims for violations of his constitutional rights with regard to the conviction

that has been set aside. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed. The amended complaint as amended fails to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and further leave to amend will not be granted

because it would be futile. This dismissal is without prejudice to Mr. Smith filing a civil rights

action for damages if his criminal convictions are ever set aside and without prejudice to Mr. Smith

filing a federal habeas petition to challenge each of his convictions. The clerk shall close the file. 

Mr. Smith’s motion for a further extension of time to amend is DENIED. (ECF No. 24.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00695-LB Document 25 Filed 09/04/15 Page 5 of 5