Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03891/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03891-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCE WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL

HOSPITAL, ET AL.,

Defendants. _____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-3891 CW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,

DISMISSING ACTION AND

TERMINATING ALL PENDING

MOTIONS

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Vince Williams filed this pro se action when he was

incarcerated at the Santa Rita County Jail, apparently on charges

of violating parole. He is currently incarcerated at the

California Medical Facility. Upon initial review of the action,

the Court found that it contained two separate pleadings: a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

and a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In an

Order dated April 27, 2005, the Court dismissed the habeas corpus

Case 4:04-cv-03891-CW Document 22 Filed 07/02/07 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state judicial

remedies. The Court construed Plaintiff's civil rights complaint

as alleging that the police officers who arrested him on May 20,

2004 used excessive force. However, the Court told Plaintiff that

it would not proceed to review the merits of his complaint unless

and until Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed

with the prosecution of his civil rights action at a cost of

$250.00. 

On May 9, 2005, Plaintiff responded to the Court's Order and

expressed his intent to prosecute the civil rights action. 

In an Order dated July 5, 2006, the Court reviewed Plaintiff's

original and subsequently filed first and second amended

complaints. The Court summarized the allegations in his complaints

as follows:

In his original complaint, Plaintiff alleges that

on May 20, 2004 unnamed plainclothes police officers

who were following Plaintiff in his vehicle

intentionally caused a collision between Plaintiff's

vehicle and a United Parcel Service truck, resulting in

physical injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff further

alleges that San Francisco police officers Nanice B.

Guillory, badge number 1806, and Barretta, badge number

1651, passed by and saw what was occurring but

apparently did not intervene in the situation.

In his first amended complaint (FAC), Plaintiff

maintains that private businesses, city agencies and

supervisory officials engaged in a conspiracy to cover

up the misconduct of Guillory, Barretta, and several

other police officers. He states that during the

course of investigations by his public defender the

agencies and officials lied under oath, altered

government documents, and filed false charges and

reports. He also charges United Parcel Service with

fraud for conspiring with police. 

In his second amended complaint (SAC), Plaintiff

repeats the allegations from his FAC and charges the

businesses, agencies and supervisory officials with

Case 4:04-cv-03891-CW Document 22 Filed 07/02/07 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Plaintiff's amended complaint was filed after the thirtyday deadline; therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff an extension

of time to file his amended complaint. The time in which

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint will be extended nunc pro

tunc to October 27, 2006, the date that his amended complaint was

filed.

3

obstructing justice in his criminal and civil

proceedings. 

Plaintiff seeks damages and asks this Court to

compel the State superior court to produce allegedly

missing documents which Plaintiff filed in State court,

and to allow him to proceed with his civil and criminal

proceedings against the Defendants.

July 5, 2006 Order at 2. Citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,

486-487 (1994), the Court stated, "However, 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." 

July 5, 2006 Order at 4. The Court determined that before

Plaintiff could proceed with his excessive force claim, "he must

tell the Court whether he suffered a criminal conviction and/or the

revocation of his parole based on charges stemming from the events

upon which his complaint is founded." Id. at 5. He was given

thirty days to file an amended complaint.

On October 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed his amended complaint and

a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.1 He repeats the

allegations from his previously-filed complaints, specifically that

Case 4:04-cv-03891-CW Document 22 Filed 07/02/07 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

various state employees, private citizens, and private businesses

engaged in a conspiracy that led to charges being filed against him

stemming from his May 20, 2004 arrest, which resulted in his parole

revocation on June 3, 2004. He claims that the charges stemming

from his May 20, 2004 arrest were dropped "in the interest of

justice on June 2, 2004." He attaches a document dated June 3,

2004, entitled "Summary of Revocation Decision: Hearing

Waived/Screening Offer," which indicates that his parole was

revoked and that he was returned to custody for nine months based

on "good cause" findings related to the charges stemming from his

May 20, 2004 arrest.

DISCUSSION

"Heck applies to proceedings [that] call into question the

fact or duration of parole." Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 177

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 851 (1995). A plaintiff in a

§ 1983 suit may not question the validity of the confinement

resulting from a parole-revocation hearing if he does not allege

that the parole board's decision has been reversed, expunged, set

aside or called into question. See Littles v. Bd. of Pardons and

Paroles Div., 68 F.3d 122, 123 (5th Cir. 1995); see also McGrew v.

Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 1995)

(Heck bars § 1983 action challenging revocation of supervised

release). 

When a state prisoner's section 1983 suit implicates the

length of his or her incarceration, the complaint must be dismissed

unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the decision establishing

the length of incarceration (here, the decision to revoke parole)

has already been invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-487. Here, a

Case 4:04-cv-03891-CW Document 22 Filed 07/02/07 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

 To whatever extent Plaintiff seeks injunctive or other

relief that would shorten his confinement, as opposed to an award

of money damages, his sole remedy is to file a petition for writ

of habeas corpus, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973),

after he exhausts state judicial remedies, Granberry v. Greer, 481

U.S. 129, 134 (1987). Any such claim is therefore dismissed

without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d

583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). 

As mentioned earlier, Plaintiff previously filed a federal

habeas case in this Court. It was dismissed without prejudice for

failure to exhaust. He may not pursue a federal habeas until he

has presented his claims to the highest state court available.

5

judgment in favor of Plaintiff would implicate the revocation

decision, which has not already been invalidated; therefore, his

claims relating to the challenged revocation fail to state a

cognizable claim under § 1983 and must be dismissed.2

Plaintiff's remaining claims involving purely private conduct

by private citizens or businesses fail to satisfy the second

element of a § 1983 claim because they allege no action taken under

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (A

person acts under color of state law if he "exercise[s] power

possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the

wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.") (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, the Court finds

that they do not meet the standards for cognizable claims under

§ 1983. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980) (a private

individual does not act under color of state law, an essential

element of a § 1983 action); see also Ouzts v. Maryland Nat'l Ins.

Co., 505 F.2d 547, 559 (9th Cir. 1974) (purely private conduct, no

matter how wrongful, is not covered under § 1983). Accordingly,

all remaining claims involving purely private conduct by private

citizens or businesses are DISMISSED with prejudice.

Case 4:04-cv-03891-CW Document 22 Filed 07/02/07 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, leave to proceed in forma pauperis

is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims alleging that the police officers

who arrested him on May 20, 2004 used excessive force and that

various state employees, private citizens, and private businesses

engaged in a conspiracy to convict him of a parole violation are

DISMISSED. The dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff

bringing a new action raising these claims should he satisfy the

Heck pleading requirements. All remaining claims involving purely

private conduct by private citizens or businesses are DISMISSED

with prejudice.

The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions,

enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 7/2/07 _______________________________

CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:04-cv-03891-CW Document 22 Filed 07/02/07 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL et

al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV04-03891 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on July 2, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Vince Williams F-23355

CA Medical Facility

G-3-335

P.O. Box 2000

Vacaville, CA 95696-2000

Dated: July 2, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:04-cv-03891-CW Document 22 Filed 07/02/07 Page 7 of 7