Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00984/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00984-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

Case No. 5:16-cv-00984-PSG

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING CASE

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

RUSSELL KERSHAW,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:16-cv-00984-PSG

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A 

DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION DENYING 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING 

CASE

(Re: Docket No. 2)

Plaintiff Russell Kershaw applies for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915. However, because his legal claim is frivolous, the court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to 

reassign this case to a district judge and RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned judge DENY 

Kershaw’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis as frivolous and DISMISS his claim.

1

I.

By his own admission, Kershaw went to a Subway and “made a mess on a tile floor with 

feces.”2 For this, he was arrested and convicted of malicious mischief.3 Believing that he was 

unlawfully arrested for a mere “[p]rank[]”—which in his mind, was more properly a matter for the 

small claims court—Kershaw now sues Defendant the City of Santa Clara under 28 U.S.C § 1983, 

 

1

 Cf. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Hoke v. Arpaio, 92 F.3d 1192, 1192 (9th Cir. 

1996). 

2 Docket No. 1 at 6.

3

See id. at 4.

Case 5:16-cv-00984-BLF Document 4 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 5:16-cv-00984-PSG

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING CASE

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

alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights.4 He 

specifically challenges the actions of Officers Habib and Wilson.5 He alleges that Habib forged a 

false police report and then arrested him, and that he was later released and then unlawfully rearrested by Wilson.6

 He also alleges that his car and its contents were impounded and sold.7 

Kershaw seeks $99,000 in monetary damages.8

II.

The parties have not yet consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction,9so this matter shall be 

reassigned to a district judge. 

When presented with an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must first 

determine if the applicant satisfies the economic eligibility requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

10

Section 1915(a) does not require an applicant to demonstrate absolute destitution.11 An IFP 

application will be denied and the action dismissed, however, if the party seeking IFP status has 

filed a pleading or petition that is legally frivolous.12 A submission is “frivolous” for IFP purposes

and therefore subject to summary dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) “where it lacks an arguable 

 

4

See id. at 1, 4.

5

See id. at 6.

6

See id.

7

See id.

8

See id. at 7.

9

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

10 See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 n.5 (9th Cir. 1984).

11 See McCone v. Holiday Inn Convention Ctr., 797 F.2d 853, 854 (10th Cir. 1982) (citing Adkins 

v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). 

12 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

Case 5:16-cv-00984-BLF Document 4 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 5:16-cv-00984-PSG

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING CASE

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

basis either in law or in fact.”

13

III.

Applying the above standard, the court RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned district 

judge DENY Kershaw’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISS his case as 

frivolous. Kershaw claims that his state “conviction is a violation of [his] fourteenth amendment” 

and seeks money damages under Section 1983.14 However, the law sets specific requirements for 

this type of case:

in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction . . . or for 

other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or 

sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction . . . 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, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages 

bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated 

is not cognizable under § 1983.15

Kershaw seeks damages under Section 1983 for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction, 

but he does not allege that his conviction has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid or called 

into question by a writ of habeas corpus. Because of that, he does not have a cause of action under 

Section 1983, making his claim frivolous and in forma pauperis status inappropriate.

SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.

Dated: March 4, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

13 Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Hoke, 92 F.3d at 1192.

14 Docket No. 1 at 4, 6.

15 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).

Case 5:16-cv-00984-BLF Document 4 Filed 03/04/16 Page 3 of 3