Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05470/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05470-2/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY GRANT FRYE,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05470-YGR (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; AND 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR RECONSIDERATION

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jerry Grant Frye, an inmate on death row at San Quentin State Prison, filed a pro 

se prisoner’s civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining that the California 

process for reviewing capital convictions and sentences is unlawfully slow and inadequate. 

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted. Dkt. 12. His request for 

appointment of counsel has been denied. Id.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court reviewed the complaint, identified numerous 

deficiencies in it, and dismissed it with leave to amend. Dkt. 9. Plaintiff then filed an amended 

complaint, which is now before the Court for review. 

Plaintiff has also filed a document entitled, “Response to the Court[’]s Denial of 

Appointment of Counsel, and Renewal of the Request for Appointment of Counsel.” Dkt. 16. In 

addition, he has filed a document entitled, “Re: Amended Claim Addition,” in which he again 

requests appointment of counsel due to his “ignorance [of] the legal system and [his] lack of 

comprehension.” Dkt. 19 at 1-2. The Court construes both aforementioned documents to be 

Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration of the Court’s January 14, 2015 Order denying appointment 

of counsel.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s January 14, 2015 

Order denying appointment of counsel. Dkts. 16, 19.

Case 4:14-cv-05470-YGR Document 20 Filed 04/14/16 Page 1 of 6
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration only upon a showing of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, 

surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not 

have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) a void 

judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds justifying relief are 

extraordinary. Mere dissatisfaction with the Court’s order, or belief that the Court is wrong in its 

decision, are not grounds for relief under subparagraph (6) or any other provision of Rule 60(b). 

“‘[T]he major grounds that justify reconsideration involve an intervening change of controlling 

law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest 

injustice.’” Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) 

(quoting United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970)).

Here, Plaintiff presents no grounds that warrant reconsideration. As explained in the 

Court’s Order denying appointment of counsel, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil 

case unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter 

v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 

1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in section 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other 

grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The court may ask counsel to 

represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only in “exceptional circumstances,” the 

determination of which requires an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, 

and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 

legal issues involved. See id. at 1525; Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); 

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of these factors must be 

viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel under section 1915. See id. 

Plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showing for reconsideration. Nor is the Court otherwise 

persuaded that exceptional circumstances are present that warrant the appointment of counsel. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration are DENIED. Dkts. 16, 19. 

B. Amended Complaint Fails to Correct Deficiencies and Plead a Cognizable Claim

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 

Case 4:14-cv-05470-YGR Document 20 Filed 04/14/16 Page 2 of 6
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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 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 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).

According to the state court’s online database, Plaintiff’s 1988 judgment of conviction has 

been affirmed on appeal. See People v. Frye (Jerry Grant), Case No. S007198 (July 30, 1998);

People v. Frye, 18 Cal. 4th 894 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1023 (1999). The state court 

database also indicates that his two state habeas petitions have been denied. See Frye (Jerry 

Grant) on H.C., Case No. S062455 (Oct. 14, 1998); Frye (Jerry Grant) on H.C., Case 

No.S087755 (Jan. 24, 2001). Thus, it appears that all his subsequently-filed state actions are

closed.1 Plaintiff filed a federal habeas petition in the Eastern District of California (Frye v. 

Warden of San Quentin State Prison, E.D. Case No. 2:99-cv-00628-KJM-CKD), which is 

currently still pending.

As previously noted in its Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend, see Dkt. 15 at 3 note 

1, the Court again notes that Plaintiff’s original complaint was substantially similar to several 

“form” complaints filed by death row inmates that have been frequently dismissed. See Bolin v. 

State of California, N. D. Cal. Case No. C 14-4087 PJH (dismissed for failure to state a claim and 

for Younger abstention and barred by Heck); Theodore Shove v. Brown, N. D. Cal. Case No. C 12-

211 RMW (dismissed for failure to state a claim and affirmed on appeal); Duff v. Brown, N. D. 

 

1

If there were any pending state actions related to his conviction, this Court would have to 

abstain from adjudicating, and then dismiss, this action. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 

(1971).

Case 4:14-cv-05470-YGR Document 20 Filed 04/14/16 Page 3 of 6
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Cal. Case No. C 12-529 EMC (dismissed for failure to state a claim and for Younger abstention); 

Paul Bolin v. Brown, N. D. Cal. Case No. C 12-637 PJH (transferred to Eastern District of 

California, which ultimately dismissed complaint under Younger and Heck, and for failure to state 

a claim); Richard Vieira v. Brown, E. D. Cal. Case No. 12-cv-0044-AWI-MJS (dismissed for 

failure to state a claim and pursuant to Younger and Heck); Carlos Avena v. Brown, C. D. Cal. 

Case No. 12-cv-00485-UA-DUTY (denying in forma pauperis application because application 

was incomplete and the judicial officers had immunity from the suit); Spencer Brasure v. Brown, 

C. D. Cal. Case No. 12-CV-1027-UADUTY (denying in forma pauperis application because the 

court lacked jurisdiction; the complaint was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim; and the 

complaint sought monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief).

As mentioned above, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original 61-page complaint with leave 

to amend. Dkt. 15. However, Plaintiff’s 29-page amended complaint fails to correct most of the 

deficiencies discussed in the Court’s Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend. Specifically, 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint and the attached document entitled, “Exhibit A . . . Statement of the 

Case” fail to allege a short and plain statement of each claim for relief he wished to assert. 

Instead, these documents mainly complain about Petitioner’s “unlawful conviction [which] was 

obtained by and through unqualified counsel, and prosecutor’s criminal actions of violations of 

laws, before and during trial.” Dkt. 17 at 15.2

First, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks relief from his conviction and sentence, this action 

must be dismissed because his petition for such relief is before the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of California. See Frye v. Warden of San Quentin State Prison, E.D. Case No. 

2:99-cv-00628-KJM-CKD. Allowing this section 1983 action to proceed would duplicate and 

complicate those appellate proceedings. Also, a petition for writ of habeas corpus is the 

appropriate method to challenge the validity or duration of incarceration, not a section 1983 

action, which is the method to challenge the conditions of confinement. See Badea v. Cox, 931 

F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). 

 

2

Page number citations refer to those assigned by the Court’s electronic case management 

filing system and not those assigned by Plaintiff.

Case 4:14-cv-05470-YGR Document 20 Filed 04/14/16 Page 4 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Second, damages and injunctive relief are barred by Supreme Court precedent. In order to 

recover damages for an 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). In its Order of Dismissal with Leave to 

Amend, the Court instructed Plaintiff “not [to] assert any section 1983 claim that would call into 

question the validity of his conviction as long as the conviction remains in place.” Dkt. 15 at 4. 

However, in the relief section of his amended complaint, Plaintiff requests “[a] preliminary and 

permanent injunction ordering the defendants, State of California, to acknowledge the violations 

of [his] constitutional civil rights, and release [him] from prison.” Dkt. 17 at 12. Again, this form 

of relief is squarely barred by the Heck rule discussed above and in the Order of Dismissal with 

Leave to Amend. See Dkt. 15 at 3-4. Plaintiff has made no showing that his conviction meets the 

Heck standard, and a judgment in his favor in this action would necessarily imply the invalidity of 

his conviction or sentence. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. The Heck rule also bars consideration of 

any claim (such as the prosecutorial and judicial misconduct claims as well as ineffective 

assistance of attorney claims Plaintiff mentions, see Dkt. 17 at 4-11) that would call into question 

the validity of the conviction or sentence. 

Further leave to amend will not be granted because the Court already has explained to 

Plaintiff the specific deficiencies in his pleading and he has been unable or unwilling to correct 

them. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration of the Court’s January 

14, 2015 Order denying appointment of counsel. Dkts. 16, 19.

2. This action is DISMISSED without further leave to amend because the amended 

complaint fails to comply with the Court’s order to correct the deficiencies that existed in the 

Case 4:14-cv-05470-YGR Document 20 Filed 04/14/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

original complaint. 

3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment, terminate any pending motions, and

close the file. 

4. This Order terminates Docket Nos. 16 and 19.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

April 14, 2016

Case 4:14-cv-05470-YGR Document 20 Filed 04/14/16 Page 6 of 6