Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05494/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05494-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

1

The matter was reassigned to the undersigned on April 7, 2008.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OSAMA A. SHALAT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUSANVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,

SUSANVILLE’S COURT,

Defendants

 /

No. C-07-5494 MMC

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before the Court is plaintiff’s complaint, filed October 29, 2007.1

In his complaint, plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, alleges the Susanville Police

Department committed a “violation” and that the “court house in Susanville did not help.” 

(See Compl., second page.) Plaintiff also alleges that his “civil right” was “violated” and

that “nothing was done by the superior court.” (See Compl., third page.) Attached to the

complaint is a document titled “Court Decision on Trial by Declaration” and dated May 9,

2007, which document indicates that a Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of

Lassen, found plaintiff “guilty as charged” in the matter of People v. Shahat, TR100835,

and states the “conviction has been reported to the Dept. of Motor Vehicles.” (See Compl.,

sixth page.) Additionally, plaintiff has attached to the complaint a letter addressed to, inter

Case 3:07-cv-05494-MMC Document 16 Filed 04/10/08 Page 1 of 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

2

On April 3, 2008, the Court granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis.

2

alia, the “Northern District, US Court House, San Francisco,” in which plaintiff requests “all

cases with a guilty verdict be reviewed and moved to higher court along with this one

[plaintiff’s guilty verdict].” (See Compl., fourth page.) Plaintiff’s complaint does not identify

the nature of any civil rights violation or the relief sought.

Thereafter, in a supplement to his complaint, filed February 19, 2008, plaintiff

identified the nature of the violation, specifically, that he was cited for a traffic violation by a

Susanville police officer even though, plaintiff alleges, he had not violated any law, (see

Supp. to Compl., first page), and that, thereafter, the state court convicted him “with a false

traffic ticket,” (see Supp. to Compl., second page). Further, in said supplemental filing,

plaintiff sets forth the specific relief sought herein: (1) “I am asking [the] court to overturn

any conviction that I received from Susanville Court for my traffic tickets;” and (2) “I am

also asking that Susanville pay half of my expenses that occurred from this incident.” (See

id.)

Where, as here, a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis,2 the district court “shall”

dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In the instant case, the Court finds plaintiff has failed to state

a claim upon which relief can be granted.

First, to the extent plaintiff seeks review of his state court conviction, the complaint is

subject to dismissal, without prejudice to plaintiff’s filing a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus, after he has exhausted the “remedies available in the courts of the State.” See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). Second, to the extent plaintiff seeks an award of damages in light

of the officer’s having allegedly issued a traffic ticket even though plaintiff had not violated

any law, the complaint is subject to dismissal, without prejudice to plaintiff’s refiling such

claims in the event he is successful in setting aside his criminal conviction. See Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (holding plaintiff cannot seek to “recover damages

for [an] allegedly unconstitutional conviction . . ., or for other harm caused by actions

Case 3:07-cv-05494-MMC Document 16 Filed 04/10/08 Page 2 of 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

3

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction . . . invalid,” unless conviction has been

reversed or set aside); Smithart v. Towery, 79 F. 3d 951, 952 (9th Cir.1996) (“There is no

question that Heck bars [the plaintiff’s] claims that defendants lacked probable cause to

arrest him and brought unfounded criminal charges against him.”).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED, without leave to amend.

The U.S. Marshal need not serve the summons issued by the Clerk on April 7, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05494-MMC Document 16 Filed 04/10/08 Page 3 of 3