Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06655/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06655-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH R. RIOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CRISTINA L. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06655-EMC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Docket Nos. 1, 3

I. INTRODUCTION

Keith R. Rios, an inmate at Avenal State Prison, filed a pro se civil rights complaint 

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint is now before the Court for review under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A. The request for appointment of counsel also is now before the Court for review.

II. BACKGROUND

The complaint in this action is directed at overturning Mr. Rios’ conviction, or at least 

removing a hurdle that allegedly interferes with his ability to ask for his conviction to be 

overturned. Before turning to the allegations of the complaint, a few background facts are recited 

to put the complaint in context. 

A. Mr. Rios’ Conviction, And His Unsuccessful Appeal And Habeas Proceedings

Mr. Rios was convicted in Monterey County Superior Court in 2010 of numerous sex 

offenses against minors and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. See Docket No. 1 at 2-3 in Rios 

v. Pennywell, N.D. Cal. Case No. 13-cv-3430 VC (the “2013 federal habeas case”). His 

conviction was affirmed and his petition for review was denied in 2012. Id.; People v. Rios, 2012 

WL 53816 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2012) (rejecting appeal on the merits). 

Mr. Rios filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus that was denied on July 22, 2014. 

Case 3:18-cv-06655-EMC Document 11 Filed 11/27/18 Page 1 of 5
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

See Docket No. 8 in the 2013 federal habeas case. The Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of 

appealability. See Docket No. 15 in the 2013 federal habeas case. The U.S. Supreme Court 

denied Mr. Rios’ petition for writ of certiorari in April 2016. See Docket No. 17 in 2013 federal 

habeas case. 

Mr. Rios also filed habeas actions in the state courts in 2016 and 2018 that were rejected 

on procedural grounds as well as on the merits. Docket No. 1 at 5-6, 31-34. 

In 2016, Mr. Rios applied to the Ninth Circuit for authorization to file a second or 

successive federal habeas petition. The Ninth Circuit denied his application in July 2017. Docket 

No. 1-1 at 8.

B. Allegations In Complaint

In his civil rights complaint in the present action, Mr. Rios has sued Monterey County 

Superior Court Judge Larry Hayes and Monterey County District Attorney Cristina Johnson. He 

alleges that the district attorney engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during her closing argument 

at Mr. Rios’ trial and that the judge erred by not timely and adequately admonishing the district 

attorney. Docket No. 1 at 8.

1 Mr. Rios alleges that the prosecutorial misconduct and the trial 

court’s errors “result[ed] in a denial of due process of law under the 5th, 6th, and fourteenth 

Amendment, a denial which undermined his right to a fair trial.” Docket No. 1-1 at 76 (errors in 

source). 

Mr. Rios alleges that he did not learn of these problems until after April 2016. Docket No. 

 

1 Mr. Rios alleges that the district attorney’s statements during closing argument amounted to 

prosecutorial misconduct, and the judge committed “plain error “in giving “late and incomplete 

admonition[s]” about the prosecutor’s misconduct. Docket No. 1 at 8. Mr. Rios states that the 

prosecutor was “providing untruthful statements, withholding Brady material, inflaming jury 

passions and providing personal opinions, all at trial closing arguments.” Id. (emphasis added). 

Elsewhere in his complaint, he elaborates on the prosecutor’s misdeeds and makes it clear that the 

“withholding Brady material” consisted of the prosecutor not telling the jury during closing 

argument about pro-defense evidence that had been found during a search pursuant to a warrant of 

Mr. Rios’ home and car. Docket No. 1-1 at 12, 72. Mr. Rios misunderstands the Brady doctrine. 

A Brady violation occurs when the prosecution fails to turn over favorable material evidence to 

the defense; it does not occur when the prosecutor fails to alert the jury in closing argument to 

evidence obtained from the defendant. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (“the 

suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due 

process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good 

faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”). No Brady violation occurred on the facts alleged.

Case 3:18-cv-06655-EMC Document 11 Filed 11/27/18 Page 2 of 5
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

1 at 8. Mr. Rios also alleges that the doctrines of absolute judicial and prosecutorial immunity do 

not shield judges and prosecutors from suits for injunctive relief. Id. at 5. He requests a 

declaratory judgment and injunctive relief order compelling “state and federal courts to remove 

time bar” from Mr. Rios’ complaint against the district attorney and judge. Id. His complaint 

alleges that state and federal habeas petitions have been denied as time-barred, although the basis 

for this assertion is not stated. Docket No. 1 at 6.2 He also alleges that he was abandoned by his 

federal appellate attorney; he did not learn of the Ninth Circuit’s March 13, 2015 denial of his 

certificate of appealability until about November 2015; and his appellate counsel sent the case file 

to Mr. Rios’ family in April 2016. Docket No. 1 at 7. 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Review Of Complaint

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). 

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).

Generally, a plaintiff may not bring a § 1983 action for alleged constitutional violations in 

connection with his criminal trial as long as the conviction remains in place. Heck v. Humphrey, 

512 U.S. 477 (1994), held that a plaintiff cannot bring a civil 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 

 

2 The basis for Mr. Rios’ assertion that his habeas petitions have been rejected as time-barred is 

unclear. His direct appeal and federal petition were rejected on the merits. The habeas decisions 

attached to the complaint do not deny relief based on a determination that the claims are timebarred.

Case 3:18-cv-06655-EMC Document 11 Filed 11/27/18 Page 3 of 5
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

determined to be wrongful. See id. at 486-87. 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 id. The Heck rule also prevents a person from bringing an 

action that -- even if it does not directly challenge the conviction -- would imply that the 

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

conviction in a civil rights action; the conviction must have been successfully attacked before the 

civil rights action is filed. The Heck rule was first announced with respect to an action for 

damages, but has since been applied to actions that sought declaratory and injunctive relief. If 

success in the § 1983 action would “necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its 

duration,’ the § 1983 action is barred no matter the relief sought (i.e., damages or equitable relief) 

as long as the conviction has not been set aside. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005).

Heck bars this action. To be entitled to any relief – whether it be monetary, equitable or 

injunctive relief – in a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must establish that there has been a violation of a

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated. Here, Mr. Rios alleges 

that Defendants violated his rights to due process and a fair trial. Although Mr. Rios purports to 

only want the court to order the federal and state courts to remove a time-bar to the consideration 

of his claims, the constitutional violations he has alleged and are necessary to his § 1983 claims

are squarely within the Heck rule because their success would call into question the validity of his 

conviction and sentence from the Monterey County Superior Court. The Heck rule bars his § 1983 

action at this time because his conviction is still in place.

The exclusive method for a state prisoner to challenge his state court conviction or 

sentence in federal court is by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Mr. Rios already has done so. His habeas 

petition challenging his conviction was denied in the 2013 federal habeas case, and the Ninth 

Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. A prisoner who wishes to file a second or successive 

habeas petition challenging the same conviction or sentence must first obtain from the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”) an order authorizing this Court to 

consider a second or successive petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). If Mr. Rios wants to 

Case 3:18-cv-06655-EMC Document 11 Filed 11/27/18 Page 4 of 5
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

attempt to obtain the necessary order from the Ninth Circuit, he should file an “Application For 

Leave To File Second Or Successive Petition” in the Ninth Circuit (at 95 Seventh Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94103). A copy of the form application is enclosed with this order for his 

convenience. Although he already applied once to file a second or successive petition, there does 

not appear to be a strict limit on the number of applications to file a second or successive petitions 

an inmate may file. 

B. Request For Appointment Of Counsel

Mr. Rios has requested that counsel be appointed to represent him in this action. A district 

court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an indigent 

civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 

Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the 

ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before 

deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Exceptional circumstances are not present 

in this action because there is no likelihood of success on the merits in this case. Mr. Rios’ request 

for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action is DENIED. Docket No. 3.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. The dismissal is without prejudice to Mr. Rios filing a new petition for writ of 

habeas corpus if he ever obtains permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to do so, and 

without prejudice to him filing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if his conviction is ever set aside. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2018

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06655-EMC Document 11 Filed 11/27/18 Page 5 of 5