Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04556/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04556-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

JAMES HAROLD HARVEY, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

STEPHEN MAYBERG, et al,

Defendant(s).

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No C 05-4556 VRW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Doc # 2)

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner currently detained at the San Francisco 

County Jail on state charges seeking to declare him a “sexually violent predator”

and civilly commit him to Atascadero State Hospital under California's Sexually

Violent Predator Act, Cal Welf & Inst Code § 6600 ("SVPA"), has filed a pro se

civil rights complaint under 42 USC § 1983 seeking damages for allegedly

unconstitutional acts leading to his current detention and pending charges. 

Among other things, plaintiff alleges that defendants “fabricated and/or conspired

to fabricate evidence,” and “solicited and/or conspired in the solicitation of false

testimony” leading to his detention and charges. Plaintiff also seeks to proceed in

forma pauperis under 28 USC § 1915.

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 USC § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable
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 F2d 696, 699 (9th Cir 1990).

To state a claim under 42 USC § 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 US 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 US 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.

Heck applies to detainees under an involuntary civil commitment scheme

such as SVPA, Huftile v Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir 2005),

and to claims which necessarily imply the invalidity of pending charges, Harvey

v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). Where, as here, a detainee’s

claim for damages and/or declaratory relief would necessarily imply the

invalidity of the detainee’s pending charges, the claim is barred under the

rationale of Heck. See Huftile, 410 F3d at 1140-42; Harvey, 210 F3d at 1014. 
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

 

1And to whatever extent plaintiff seeks to challenge either the fact or

duration of his confinement, his sole remedy is to file a petition for writ of habeas

corpus under the habeas sections of Title 18. See Calderon v Ashmus, 523 US

740, 747 (1998). Any such claim is dismissed without prejudice. See Trimble,

49 F3d at 586. 

3

Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a cognizable claim for relief under § 1983 and

must be DISMISSED without prejudice. See Edwards v Balisok, 520 US 641,

649 (1997); Huftile, 410 F3d at 1142; Trimble v City of Santa Rosa, 49 F3d 583,

585 (9th Cir 1995).1

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis

(doc # 2) is DENIED and the action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order, terminate all

pending motions as moot, and close the file. No fee is due.

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge