Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05614/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05614-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY CEASER LEWIS,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

MARY SWIEGHIET; DANA C.

CORNILIOUS; JUDITH MEDRANO;

and TIMOTHY P. ROBERTS, 

Defendants. /

No. C 07-5614 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Because the complaint was

incomprehensible, the Court dismissed it with leave to amend. Plaintiff has amended. 

DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

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. 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).

///

Case 3:07-cv-05614-WHA Document 9 Filed 02/25/08 Page 1 of 3
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

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 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 1986-87. 

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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 

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

B. HECK 

Although the amended complaint contains much that is incomprehensible, plaintiff’s

claim is, at bottom, that he was falsely arrested, possibly in the belief that he was on parole and

had violated it, and “sent to prison with no charges and forced to stay.” That is, his claim goes

to the validity of his confinement.

The United States Supreme Court has held that to recover damages for an allegedly

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose

unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 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, 114 S. Ct.

2364, 2372 (1994). "[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." 

Case 3:07-cv-05614-WHA Document 9 Filed 02/25/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Id. at 2374 (footnote omitted). Any such claim may be dismissed sua sponte without prejudice. 

Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995).

The Ninth Circuit has held that Heck generally bars claims challenging the validity of an

arrest. 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); 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). And to whatever extent plaintiff’s present incarceration relates to parole – although he

claims he was not on parole, it appears the defendants thought he was – Heck also applies. See

Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1995). 

A judgment in favor of the plaintiff here would implicate the validity of plaintiff’s

present incarceration, which has not already been invalidated; therefore, this complaint fails to

state a cognizable claim under § 1983 and must be dismissed. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to

reasserting them if a cause of action ever accrues. Because leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”) has already been granted, plaintiff’s new motion to proceed IFP (document number 8)

is DENIED as moot. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.07\HERNANDEZ853.DSM

Case 3:07-cv-05614-WHA Document 9 Filed 02/25/08 Page 3 of 3