Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-02273/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-02273-0/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

DAVID SABINO QUAIR,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR 

COURT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-02273-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He 

has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

DISCUSSION

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).

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.” Although 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 

Case 3:20-cv-02273-JD Document 5 Filed 06/16/20 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

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations 

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff seeks money damages with respect to improprieties concerning his conviction and 

interference with his attempts to challenge the conviction. In order 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 plaintiff suing under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 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, 

512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages relating to a conviction or sentence that has 

not been invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487.

The United States Supreme Court has recognized that some officials perform special 

functions which, because of their similarity to functions that would have been immune when 

Congress enacted § 1983, deserve absolute protection from damages liability. Buckley v. 

Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 268-69 (1993). This immunity extends to individuals performing 

functions necessary to the judicial process. Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 895-96 (9th Cir. 

2003). Under the common law, judges, prosecutors, trial witnesses, and jurors were absolutely

immune for such critical functions. Id. at 896. The Court has taken a “functional approach” to the 

question of whether absolute immunity applies in a given situation, meaning that it looks to “the 

Case 3:20-cv-02273-JD Document 5 Filed 06/16/20 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

nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.” Buckley, 509 

U.S. at 269 (1993) (quoting Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 229 (1988)). Thus, state actors are 

granted absolute immunity from damages liability in suits under § 1983 only for actions taken 

while performing a duty functionally comparable to one for which officials were immune at 

common law. Miller, 335 F.3d at 897. 

Plaintiff alleges that he signed a plea agreement to serve 39 months but the abstract of 

judgment was altered without his knowledge, and reflects the term is only 16 months. Plaintiff 

states he has sought judicial review of his conviction, but his attempts have been thwarted by court 

staff. Presumably, plaintiff feels he should have been released from custody by this time. He 

names as defendants many judicial employees of the San Mateo County Superior Court. 

To the extent plaintiff seeks money damages regarding his underlying conviction, his claim 

is barred by Heck. Plaintiff has not shown that his conviction has been reversed or expunged. 

Plaintiff has presented only a few allegations concerning how court staff interfered with his 

challenges to his conviction. The complaint is dismissed, and plaintiff will be provided one 

opportunity to amend. He must identify specific defendants and describe how they violated his 

constitutional rights in light of the legal standards set forth above.

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended complaint must 

be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption 

and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first 

page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must 

include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th 

Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to 

amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this case.

2. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice 

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to

do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Case 3:20-cv-02273-JD Document 5 Filed 06/16/20 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

Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2020

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:20-cv-02273-JD Document 5 Filed 06/16/20 Page 4 of 4