Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00113/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00113-0/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

KM

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Juha Kaleva Kivinen, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

John Evans, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-113-TUC-DGC

ORDER

On February 15, 2005, Plaint iff Juha Kaleva Kivinen, presently confined in the

Arizona State Prison Complex-Douglas, filed a pro se Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1331 ("Complaint"). Plaintiff has paid the two hundred fifty dollar ($250.00) filing fee.

Plaintiff filed return of service documents on February 24, 2005. On March 10, 2005,

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. #8). 

On March 23, 2005, an Order was inadvertently entered in this case by Judge

Collins, after this case had been transferred to the undersigned judge. The Court will

vacate this Order.

Motions to Dismiss were filed on March 31, 2005 (Doc. #15) and April 5, 2005 (Doc.

#16) by Defendants. Plaintiff filed a second Motion for Default Judgment on June 21, 2005

(Doc. #20). On October 13, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Default (Doc. #21) and on

October 24, 2005, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Notice of Default (Doc. #23). Plaintiff

Case 4:05-cv-00113-DGC-PSOT Document 28 Filed 11/18/05 Page 1 of 5
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 -

filed a third Motion for Default Judgment on November 2, 2005 (Doc. #24).

Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the Plaintiff has raised

claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). The Court also must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if

Plaintiff fails to exhaust any administrative remedy available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

Complaint

The following are named as Defendants to the Complaint: 1) John Evans, Assistant

Attorney General, St ate of Arizona; 2) Christopher Browning, Pima County Superior Court

Judge; 3) Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney; 4) Members of Grand Jury issuing

Indictment 171-GJ-614 in Pima County Superior Court Case No. CR 20032054; 5) State of

Arizona; 6) John Does 1-10,000; 7) Jane Does 1-10,000; and 8) ABC Corporations 1-10,000.

Plaintiff raises numerous claims in his Complaint challenging his indictment and

conviction in t he Pima County Superior Court for Conspiracy to Assist a Criminal

Syndicate, Theft, and Filing a False Document, with a value of $100,000.01 or more. Plaintiff

seeks immediate release from prison and money damages.

Improper Defendants

Prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability for their conduct in “initiat ing a

prosecution and in presenting the State’s case” insofar as that conduct is “intimately

associated wit h t he judicial phase of the criminal process.” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509

U.S. 259, 270 (1993) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)); Burns v. Reed, 500

U.S. 478, 486 (1991) (quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430-43); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072,

1076 (9th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, Defendants Evans and LaWall must be dismissed for

failure to state a claim.

Case 4:05-cv-00113-DGC-PSOT Document 28 Filed 11/18/05 Page 2 of 5
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 -

Judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages for their judicial acts except

when they are taken “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S.

349, 356-357 (1978); Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1075. An act is “ judicial” when it is a function

normally performed by a judge and the parties dealt with the judge in his or her judicial

capacity. Stump, 435 U.S. at 362; Crooks v. Maynard, 913 F.2d 699, 700 (9th Cir. 1990). In

this case, Plaintiff challenges actions taken by the judge presiding over his criminal

proceedings. Presiding over a criminal case is a function normally p erformed by a judge

and Plaintiff dealt with the judge named in this suit in his judicial capacity. Plaintiff makes

no colorable allegations that the judge named in t he Comp laint acted outside of his

jurisdiction. Accordingly, Defendant Browning must be dismissed from t his action for

failure to state a claim.

Similarly, members of a grand jury are absolut ely immune from suit because, like a

judge, they must "exercise a discretionary judgment on the basis of evidence presented to

them." Imbler, 424 U.S. at 423 n.20. Accordingly, Defendant s Members of Grand Jury will

be dismissed from this action.

Finally, under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of t he Unit ed States, a

state or state agency may not be sued in federal court without its consent. Pennhurst State

School and Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045

(9t h Cir. 1989). Furthermore, “a state is not a ‘person’ for purposes of section 1983. 

Defendant State of Arizona will therefore be dismissed.

Failure to State a Claim

Plaintiff’s complaint seeking damages for wrongful p rosecution is also premature

because his conviction has never been reversed, expunged or otherwise invalidated. The

Supreme Court has held:

[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imp risonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness

would render a convict ion or sentence invalid, a . . . plaintiff must prove that

the conviction or sent ence 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

Case 4:05-cv-00113-DGC-PSOT Document 28 Filed 11/18/05 Page 3 of 5
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 should not e t hat a prisoner attacking his state conviction must exhaust state

remedies before a federal court will entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Rose v. Lundy,

455 U.S. 509 (1982); Szeto v. Rushen, 709 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1983). The federal court will not

entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus unless each and every issue has been exhausted. Rose,

455 U.S. at 521-22. “[E]xcept in habeas petitions in life-sentence or capital cases, claims of Arizona

state prisoners are exhausted for purposes of federal habeas once the Arizona Court of Appeals has

ruled on them.” Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999). The failure to exhaust

subjects a habeas petitioner to dismissal. Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195 (9th Cir. 1983).

- 4 -

of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing that

relationship t o a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is

not cognizable[.]

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-7 (1994) (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted).

Therefore, when a state prisoner seeks damages in a suit alleging an

unconstitutional convict ion or imprisonment, the district court must consider whether a

judgment in favor of the Plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction

or sentence. Id. If it does, the complaint must be dismissed if t he conviction or sentence

has not already been invalidated. In this case, Plaintiff explicitly alleges both t hat his

conviction was invalid and t hat it has not been overturned, reversed, or declared invalid.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed.

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks the invalidation of his sentence, or any relief which

would result in immediate or speedier release, his exclusive remedy is a petition for habeas

corpus.1

 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-90 (1973).

Dismissal Without Leave to Amend

Because the Court is convinced that the deficiencies in the Complaint cannot be

cured by amendment, see Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing

Broughton v. Cutter Lab, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980)), the Court’s dismissal of the

Complaint will be without leave to amend, and the Court will order that the action be

dismissed and judgment entered.

Motions

As all of the pending motions in this case were filed before the Court completed

Case 4:05-cv-00113-DGC-PSOT Document 28 Filed 11/18/05 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

st atutory screening of Plaintiff's Complaint, these motions are premature and, in light of the

Court's dismissal, are moot. These motions will be denied as moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Order entered in this case on March 23, 2005 (Doc. #12) is VACATED;

(2) The Complaint and this action are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND,

for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2), and the Clerk of Court

shall enter judgment accordingly; 

(3) The Clerk of Court shall make an entry on the docket in this matter indicating that

t he dismissal for failure to state a claim falls within the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and

(4) The following motions are DENIED AS MOOT:

(a) Plaintiff's March 10, 2005 Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. #8),

(b) Defendants' March 31, 2005 Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #15),

(c) Defendants' April 5, 2005 Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #16), 

(d) Plaintiff's June 21, 2005 Motion for Default Judgment (Doc #20),

(e) Defendants' October 24, 2005 Motion to Strike (Doc. #23), and 

(f) Plaintiff's November 3, 2005 Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. #24).

DATED this 16th day of November, 2005.

Case 4:05-cv-00113-DGC-PSOT Document 28 Filed 11/18/05 Page 5 of 5