Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01274/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01274-0/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

JAMES TIMOTHY MCCARTHY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JIMMIE L. WILSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01274-JST 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On March 8, 2019, Plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at the California 

Correctional Training Facility and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate 

order. His complaint (ECF No. 1) is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review 

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in 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 

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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 

(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

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.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 

statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon 

Case 3:19-cv-01274-JST Document 5 Filed 04/23/19 Page 1 of 4
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

which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although 

in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . 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, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint 

must proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 

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

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff alleges that Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley and Alameda 

County Assistant District Attorney Jimmie Wilson violated his constitutional rights by engaging in 

prosecutorial misconduct at his criminal trial in 2012. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that 

defendants committed fraud on the court when they conspired with a prosecution witness to 

present false testimony at the November 15, 2012 preliminary hearing. Plaintiff is currently in 

prison as a result of the 2012 conviction. Plaintiff has a habeas petition pending in this court 

challenging the conviction. See McCarthy v. Koenig, C No. 16-6820 HSG (PR).1 He seeks 

money damages, the elimination of all fines and court fees, and that criminal complaints be 

brought against defendants. 

This is not the first time that Plaintiff has brought these claims. In McCarthy v. Wilson, C 

No. 19-cv-0013 JST (PR), Plaintiff brought identical claims, though he requested slightly different 

relief, i.e., that the prosecution witness be charged in federal court for conspiracy to defraud the 

government, whereas here he asks that the prosecutors be criminally charged. See McCarthy v. 

 

1 Plaintiff’s prosecutorial misconduct claim was dismissed from his habeas action as procedurally 

defaulted. See C No. 16-6820 at ECF No. 15. Plaintiff asserts that the judge in that case, Judge 

Haywood S. Gilliam, advised him that he could seek relief through a federal civil rights action. 

The Court has reviewed the orders in 16-cv-6820 and sees no such advisement. 

Case 3:19-cv-01274-JST Document 5 Filed 04/23/19 Page 2 of 4
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

Wilson, C No. 19-cv-0013 JST (PR) (“McCarthy I”), ECF No. 1 (Complaint) and ECF No. 8 

(Order of Dismissal). The claims in McCarthy I were dismissed as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 

512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994), which holds that a plaintiff cannot receive damages in a suit under 

§ 1983 for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction, or for other harm caused by actions whose 

unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, until 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. Id. 

The present action must be dismissed for two reasons.

First, duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action is subject to 

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious. Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 

1988). An in forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims 

may be considered abusive and dismissed under § 1915. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 

1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. As just noted, this case repeats a prior case 

almost verbatim. 

Second, as explained in McCarthy I, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 

512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). A claim for damages arising from a conviction or sentence that has 

not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Id. If Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants 

violated his constitutional rights by fabricating perjured testimony are proven true, this would 

imply the invalidity of his conviction. Plaintiff’s conviction has yet to be invalidated. Until then, 

the claims are barred by Heck. See Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 703 (9th Cir. 2006) (Heck

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

officers to bring false charges against him).

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:19-cv-01274-JST Document 5 Filed 04/23/19 Page 3 of 4
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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice as duplicative. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2019

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01274-JST Document 5 Filed 04/23/19 Page 4 of 4