Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02983/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02983-0/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

1

 The Court notes that Plaintiff has had three or more prior prisoner actions dismissed by the

Court on the grounds that they are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. See, e.g., Hardaway v. Beaupre, et al., C 00-4603 CAL (dismissed March 7, 2001); Hardaway v.

Vens, C 00-3653 CAL (dismissed November 28, 2000); Hardaway v. Madigan, C 98-1989 FMS

(dismissed May 19, 1998); Hardaway v. Prenate, et al., C 97-451 FMS (dismissed February 12, 1997);

Hardaway v. Department of Corrections, C 97-311 FMS (dismissed February 5, 1997); Hardaway v.

Board of Prison Terms, C 91-658 CAL (dismissed March 27, 1991). Because Plaintiff has had three or

more summary dismissals and does not allege in the instant action that he is under imminent danger of

serious physical injury, he may not proceed in forma pauperis. However, the Court dismisses the instant

complaint on the merits. 

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis as Moot; No Filing Fee Is Due 

P:pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Hardaway983dis

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SONNY RAY HARDAWAY, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

TWELVE JURORS, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-2983 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AS MOOT; NO

FILING FEE IS DUE 

(Docket No. 3)

 Plaintiff , a state prisoner proceeding pro se and frequent litigant in this Court,

filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the twelve jurors in his

1999 Alameda Superior Court criminal trial. Plaintiff also seeks leave to proceed in

forma pauperis.1

 Plaintiff alleges claims of conspiracy, discrimination, intimidation,

**Original filed 8/31/06**

Case 5:06-cv-02983-JF Document 4 Filed 08/31/06 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

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis as Moot; No Filing Fee Is Due 

P:pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Hardaway983dis

retaliation, false imprisonment, slavery and cruel and unusual punishment against the

Defendants. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive monetary damages. The Court

concludes Plaintiff’s complaint is not cognizable under § 1983 and will DISMISS the

complaint without prejudice. Based upon the dismissal, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis (docket no. 3) is DENIED as moot. 

DISCUSSION

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 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims that 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 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 that a person acting under the color of state law

committed a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

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). 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. 

When a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must

therefore consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply

the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed

unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been

Case 5:06-cv-02983-JF Document 4 Filed 08/31/06 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

Order of Dismissal; Denying Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis as Moot; No Filing Fee Is Due 

P:pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Hardaway983dis

invalidated. Id. at 487. If success in the § 1983 suit would necessarily demonstrate the

invalidity of the confinement or its duration, the § 1983 suit is barred no matter the relief

sought (damages or equitable relief) and no matter the target of the suit (conduct leading

to conviction or internal prison proceedings). Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81

(2005); Osborne v. District Attorney’s Office, 423 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Heck generally bars claims challenging the validity of an arrest, prosecution or

conviction. See Guerrero v. Gates, 357 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 2004) (Heck barred

plaintiff’s claims of wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution and conspiracy among police

officers to bring false charges against him); Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d

374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998) (Heck barred plaintiff’s false arrest and imprisonment claims

until conviction was invalidated); Smithart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir. 1996)

(Heck barred plaintiff’s claims that defendants lacked probable cause to arrest him and

brought unfounded criminal charges against him). 

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.” Id. at 489-90 (footnote omitted). Any such claim is not cognizable

and therefore should be dismissed. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 649 (1997);

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). 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 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after

exhausting state judicial remedies. See Calderon v Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998). 

Any such claim therefore is dismissed without prejudice. See Trimble v City of Santa

Rosa, 49 F.3d at 586. 

Here, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants convicted an innocent man. Plaintiff

alleges claims of racial discrimination, false imprisonment, conspiracy, and cruel and

unusual punishment, among others. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is not cognizable

under § 1983. 

Case 5:06-cv-02983-JF Document 4 Filed 08/31/06 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

Order of Dismissal 

P:pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Hardaway729dis

The instant complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling a new

complaint if his criminal conviction is later invalidated or overturned.

CONCLUSION

The Court concludes Plaintiff’s claim is not cognizable under § 1983. The instant 

complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis (docket no. 3) is DENIED as moot. No filing fee is due. The Clerk shall

terminate all pending motions and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

8/31/06 /S/

Case 5:06-cv-02983-JF Document 4 Filed 08/31/06 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

Order of Dismissal 

P:pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Hardaway729dis

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Sonny Ray Hardaway

P-45579

North Kern State Prison 

P.O. Box 5102

Delano, CA 95531 

Case 5:06-cv-02983-JF Document 4 Filed 08/31/06 Page 5 of 5