Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00220/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00220-0/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

K:\COM M ON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv0220-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 1 12cv0220 LAB (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL FLINNER,

CDCR # V-30064 Civil

No. 

12cv0220 LAB (POR)

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

and

(2) DISMISSING ACTION FOR

FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM, AS

FRIVOLOUS AND FOR SEEKING

MONETARY DAMAGES AGAINST

DEFENDANTS WHO ARE IMMUNE

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b)

vs.

R. GEORGE, et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison located in San

Quentin, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2].

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United

States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28

Case 3:12-cv-00220-LAB-POR Document 4 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 7
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

K:\COM M ON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv0220-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 2 12cv0220 LAB (POR)

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay only if the party is

granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493

F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).

Prisoners granted leave to proceed IFP however, remain obligated to pay the entire fee in

installments, regardless of whether the action is ultimately dismissed for any reason. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2).

The Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit which complies with 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1), and that he has attached a certified copy of his trust account statement pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. CAL. CIVLR 3.2. Plaintiff’s trust account statement shows that

he has insufficient funds from which to pay an initial partial filing fee.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP [ECF No. 2] and

assesses no initial partial filing fee per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). However, the Court further

orders the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”)

to garnish the entire $350 balance of the filing fees owed in this case, collect and forward them

to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1).

II. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)’s amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 also

obligate the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like

Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or

adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole,

probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as practicable after docketing.”

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Under these provisions, the Court must sua

sponte dismiss any prisoner civil action and all other IFP complaints, or any portions thereof,

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from defendants who

are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-

27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 n.1 (9th Cir.

2000) (§ 1915A).

Case 3:12-cv-00220-LAB-POR Document 4 Filed 03/02/12 Page 2 of 7
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

K:\COM M ON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv0220-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 3 12cv0220 LAB (POR)

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that there is a vast conspiracy between the Justices of the

California Supreme Court, Justices from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California State

Bar Association, and the Attorney General for the State of California to deprive him of his

constitutional rights. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that there was a conspiracy to find him guilty

of several crimes which lead to his death sentence. These claims amount to an attack on the

constitutional validity of an underlying state criminal proceeding, and as such, may not be

maintained pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless and until he can show that conviction has

already been invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Ramirez v. Galaza,

334 F.3d 850, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Absent such a showing, ‘[e]ven a prisoner who has fully

exhausted available state remedies has no cause of action under § 1983....’”) (quoting Heck, 512

U.S. at 489). 

“In any § 1983 action, the first question is whether § 1983 is the appropriate avenue to

remedy the alleged wrong.” Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1353 (9th Cir. 1985) (en

banc). A prisoner in state custody simply may not use a § 1983 civil rights action to challenge

the “fact or duration of his confinement.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). The

prisoner must seek federal habeas corpus relief instead. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78

(2005) (quoting Preiser, 411 U.S. at 489). Thus, Plaintiff’s § 1983 action “is barred (absent

prior invalidation)--no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target

of his suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)--if success in that

action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson,

544 U.S. at 82. 

In this case, Plaintiff’s claims that his constitutional rights were violated during his

criminal trial “necessarily imply the invalidity” of his criminal proceedings and continuing

incarceration. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. In creating the favorable termination rule in Heck, the

Supreme Court relied on “the hoary principle that civil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles

for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments.” Heck, 511 U.S. at 486

(emphasis added). This is precisely what Plaintiff attempts to accomplish here. Therefore, to

satisfy Heck’s “favorable termination” rule, Plaintiff must first allege facts which show that the

Case 3:12-cv-00220-LAB-POR Document 4 Filed 03/02/12 Page 3 of 7
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

K:\COM M ON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv0220-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 4 12cv0220 LAB (POR)

conviction and/or sentence which forms the basis of his § 1983 Complaint has already been:

(1) reversed on direct appeal; (2) expunged by executive order; (3) declared invalid by a state

tribunal authorized to make such a determination; or (4) called into question by the grant of a

writ of habeas corpus. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 (emphasis added).

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges no facts sufficient to satisfy Heck. Thus, because Plaintiff

seeks damages for allegedly unconstitutional criminal proceedings in his criminal case and

appeals, and because he has not shown that his conviction has been invalidated, either by way

of direct appeal, state habeas or pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a section 1983 claim for damages

cannot be maintained, see Heck, 512 U.S. at 489-90, and his Complaint must be dismissed

without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding

that an action barred by Heck has not yet accrued and thus, must be dismissed without prejudice

so that the plaintiff may reassert his § 1983 claims if he ever succeeds in invalidating the

underlying conviction or sentence); accord Blueford v. Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 255 (9th Cir.

1997). 

Moreover, even if Plaintiff could show that the criminal conviction upon which his claims

are based has already been terminated in his favor, his Complaint would still be subject to

dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b) to the extent it seeks monetary

damages against the California Attorney General, State Court Judges and Federal Court Judges.

Criminal prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil damages suits premised upon acts

committed within the scope of their official duties which are “intimately associated with the

judicial phase of the criminal process.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see also

Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 272-73 (1993); Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 487-93

(1991). A prosecutor is immune even when the prosecutor’s malicious or dishonest action

deprived the defendant of his or her liberty. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.

1986). 

All the Judicial Defendants also absolutely immune from money damages arising from

alleged constitutional violations during Plaintiff’s criminal trial and appeals. “Judges and those

performing judge-like functions are absolutely immune from damage liability for acts performed

Case 3:12-cv-00220-LAB-POR Document 4 Filed 03/02/12 Page 4 of 7
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

K:\COM M ON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv0220-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 5 12cv0220 LAB (POR)

in their official capacities.” Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). Therefore,

all of the Judicial Defendants have absolute immunity from civil proceedings relating to these

actions, which were performed within their judicial discretion. 

In addition, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made these claims before in a prior action.

Thus, plaintiff’s instant Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1) because it appears to be duplicative of a case Plaintiff has already litigated.

Plaintiff’s Complaint contains identical claims that are found in Shove, et al. v. United States

District Court Judges, et al., D.C. Civil Case No. 1:09-cv-2316 UNA. A court “may take notice

of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those

proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria

Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). 

A prisoner’s complaint is considered frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) if it

“merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,

1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations and internal

quotations omitted). Because Plaintiff has already litigated the same claims presented in the

instant action in Shove, et al. v. United States District Court Judges, et al., D.C. Civil Case No.

1:09-cv-2316 UNA, the Court hereby DISMISSES Civil Case No. 12cv0220 LAB (POR)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446

n.1.

For all these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed sua

sponte for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as frivolous and for seeking

monetary damages against immune defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)

and 1915A(b).

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No. 2] is

GRANTED. 

/ / /

Case 3:12-cv-00220-LAB-POR Document 4 Filed 03/02/12 Page 5 of 7
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

K:\COM M ON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv0220-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 6 12cv0220 LAB (POR)

2. The Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or his

designee, shall collect from Plaintiff’s prison trust account the $350 balance of the filing fee

owed in this case by collecting monthly payments from the account in an amount equal to twenty

percent (20%) of the preceding month’s income and forward payments to the Clerk of the Court

each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

ALL PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER

ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Matthew Cate,

Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 1515 S Street, Suite 502,

Sacramento, California 95814.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

4. The case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted, as frivolous and for seeking money damages against immune Defendants.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) & § 1915A(b). In addition, the Court finds further amendment

would be futile. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996) (denial of

a leave to amend is not an abuse of discretion where further amendment would be futile); see

also Robinson v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D. Cal. 1998)

(“Since plaintiff has not, and cannot,state a claim containing an arguable basis in law, this action

should be dismissed without leave to amend; any amendment would be futile.”) (citing Newland

v. Dalton, 81 F.3d 904, 907 (9th Cir. 1996)).

5. IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that an IFP appeal from this final order of

dismissal would not appear to be taken “in good faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th

Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not be

frivolous).

Case 3:12-cv-00220-LAB-POR Document 4 Filed 03/02/12 Page 6 of 7
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

K:\COM M ON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv0220-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 7 12cv0220 LAB (POR)

The Clerk of the Court shall close the file.

DATED: March 1, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-00220-LAB-POR Document 4 Filed 03/02/12 Page 7 of 7