Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-01152/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-01152-0/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

VINCENT RENE TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CECILIA CASTELLANOS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-01152-JST 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison, has filed this pro se

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is now before the 

Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis in a separate order.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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

seeks redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or an 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 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 28 U.S.C. 

§ 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).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 

Case 4:20-cv-01152-JST Document 10 Filed 04/21/20 Page 1 of 3
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

necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 

grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 

“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more 

than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 

do . . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 

proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 

42, 48 (1988).

B. Complaint

Plaintiff has named as defendants Judge Cecilia Castellanos and Deputy District Attorney 

Sharon Carney. Plaintiff alleges that Carney withheld exculpatory evidence and produced this 

evidence only after plaintiff was convicted, and that Judge Castellanos was aware of the 

exculpatory evidence but allowed Carney to withhold it. Plaintiff seeks $60 million in monetary 

damages. 

The Court will dismiss this action because it is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 

486-87 (1994).

1

 Pursuant to Heck, in order to recover damages for 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, 512 U.S. at 486-87. If 

1 Plaintiff’s claims are also likely barred by the doctrines of judicial and prosecutorial immunity. 

See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55 (1967) (state judge is absolutely immune from civil 

liability for damages for acts performed in her judicial capacity); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 

409, 430-31 (1976) (state prosecuting attorney enjoys absolute immunity from liability under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 for his conduct in “pursuing a criminal prosecution” insofar as he acts within his 

role as an “advocate for the State” and his actions are “intimately associated with the judicial 

phase of the criminal process.”).

Case 4:20-cv-01152-JST Document 10 Filed 04/21/20 Page 2 of 3
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

success in the Section 1983 suit would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of the confinement 

or its duration, the Section 1983 suit is barred no matter the relief sought and no matter the target 

of the suit. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005). Here, a § 1983 action alleging the 

withholding of exculpatory evidence, if successful, would necessarily imply the invalidity of 

Plaintiff’s conviction, and is not cognizable under Heck unless Plaintiff can show his conviction 

has already been invalidated. Accordingly, his claim is not cognizable under Section 1983 and 

must be dismissed. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, this action is DISMISSED as barred by Heck. The Clerk 

shall enter judgment in favor of defendants and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2020

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-01152-JST Document 10 Filed 04/21/20 Page 3 of 3