Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07830/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07830-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eddie Lamar Dunbar
Plaintiff
Malisha Jones
Defendant
Kevin Murphy
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EDDIE LAMAR DUNBAR,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

JUDGE KEVIN MURPHY;

MALISHA JONES;

Defendants. /

No. C 19-7830 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Alameda County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights case under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the judge and prosecutor involved in his pending criminal proceedings

in state court. He requests monetary compensation and to have his charges dismissed. He is

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons discussed

below, the complaint is dismissed. 

ANALYSIS

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 3:19-cv-07830-WHA Document 4 Filed 12/09/19 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 1974. 

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. LEGAL CLAIMS 

Plaintiff claims that defendants denied him counsel, falsified evidence, concealed

exculpatory evidence, coerced jurors, engaged in malicious prosecution, and committed other

violations of his rights in the course of his prosecution for criminal charges. He is currently in

custody on those charges. He seeks to have the charges dismissed, money damages, and to have

criminal charges filed against the defendants. 

His claims for damages are barred. 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 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.

Case 3:19-cv-07830-WHA Document 4 Filed 12/09/19 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

477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence

that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under Section. Id. at 487. Plaintiff’s claims

for violations of his constitutional rights at trial and in the course of his prosecution, if

successful, would necessarily imply that his conviction was not valid. Consequently, this claim

is barred by Heck. 

Plaintiff may not obtain dismissal of charges against him. Habeas is the exclusive

remedy for the prisoner who seeks immediate or speedier release from confinement. Skinner v.

Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 533-34 (2011). The only federal remedy for challenging the validity of

his state court conviction is a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Therefore, to defeat the

charges against him, plaintiff must file a federal habeas petition, but only after completing all

state court appeals, 

Plaintiff’s request to have the defendants criminally charges is beyond the purview of the

courts. That decision is within the sole discretion of a prosecutor, to whom plaintiff should

direct any such request. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, this case is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable

claim for relief. This dismissal is without prejudice to plaintiff re-filing his damages claims if

his conviction is ever expunged, reversed, invalidated, or otherwise called into question. He may

also seek to overturn his conviction or sentence by filing a habeas petition in federal court, but

only after exhausting all of his available state court appeals. 

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December , 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

Case 3:19-cv-07830-WHA Document 4 Filed 12/09/19 Page 3 of 3