Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00291/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00291-0/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

STEPHEN W. OWENS, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

SANTA CLARA POLICE

DEPARTMENT, SERGEANT ALBERT

WEIR, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-0291 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 2)

Plaintiff, a detainee at the Santa Clara County Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in

forma pauperis, which is GRANTED in a separate order filed simultaneously (docket

no. 2). The Court now reviews the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and

DISMISSES the complaint for the reasons set forth below.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s complaint is brief and does not include much detail. However, it is

clear from the complaint that Plaintiff is challenging his arrest on a pending criminal

complaint in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff alleges that Sergeant Weir

arrested him because he is African-American. In the section of the Court’s Complaint

form regarding relief, Plaintiff has requested the courts “give me relief of [sic]

prosecution and to hold Serge[a]nt A. Weir accountable for the 4th Amendment

violation.” Complaint at 4. 

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

Case 3:08-cv-00291-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/25/08 Page 1 of 5
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

prisoners seek 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)(1),(2). Pro se

pleadings must be liberally construed. See 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 essential

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

United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a

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

B. Plaintiff’s Complaint

In this case, Plaintiff has filed a § 1983 action when the criminal charges about

which he complains are pending and have not been reversed or otherwise invalidated. 

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 42 U.S.C. § 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, 486-487 (1994). An action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages

for an alleged illegal search and seizure of evidence upon which criminal charges are

based does not accrue under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), until criminal

charges have been dismissed or the conviction has been overturned. See Harvey v.

Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1014-16 (9th Cir. 2000) (claim that gaming devices had been

unlawfully searched for and seized under the Fourth Amendment barred by Heck until

charges for unlawful possession of gaming devices were dismissed). 

Case 3:08-cv-00291-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/25/08 Page 2 of 5
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 3

This court should not stay any § 1983 claim for damages implicating the

validity of a criminal conviction or sentence until criminal proceedings are completed. 

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 649 (1997). Heck makes it clear that a § 1983

"cause of action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional conviction or sentence

does not accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invalidated." Heck, 512 U.S.

at 489-90 (footnote omitted). Any such claim is not cognizable and therefore should

be dismissed. See Edwards, 520 U.S. at 649; McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d

1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2004) (claims for damages were not cognizable at the time of the

district court’s ruling which occurred prior to the Ninth Circuit’s grant of habeas

relief); Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1025 (9th Cir. 1997) (claim barred by Heck

may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6)); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583,

585 (9th Cir. 1995) (claim barred by Heck may be dismissed sua sponte without

prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §1915). 

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, Plaintiff’s claims

here are barred under the Younger abstention doctrine. Under principles of comity and

federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings

by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances. See

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971); Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 68-74

(1971). Younger abstention is required when: (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature,

are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve important state interests; and (3) the

state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional issue. See

Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). 

All three elements must be present. Agriesti v. MGM Grand Hotels, Inc., 53 F.3d 1000,

1001 (9th Cir. 1995) (abstention improper where arrest and issuance of citation were

executive acts not judicial in nature, and only potential for future state judicial

proceedings existed). The state proceedings must be pending, not merely available,

Case 3:08-cv-00291-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/25/08 Page 3 of 5
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

and plaintiffs must be seeking relief that would interfere in some manner with the state

court litigation. See Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086, 1094 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Plaintiff has alleged that a criminal prosecution against him is pending in state court,

and Plaintiff must first raise this issue there. Where, as here, Plaintiff’s claims are

barred under Heck and the Younger abstention doctrine, the action must be

DISMISSED without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED. The

Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 25, 2008 JEFFREY S. WHITE

 United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:08-cv-00291-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/25/08 Page 4 of 5
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

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN W. OWENS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY POLICE

DEPARTMENT et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV08-00291 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 25, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Stephen W. Owens

DXV482

885 North San Pedro

San Jose, CA 95110

Dated: January 25, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:08-cv-00291-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/25/08 Page 5 of 5