Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05390/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05390-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alameda County
Defendant
Tony Lee Wade
Plaintiff

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY LEE WADE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-5390 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Tony Lee Wade, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Wade alleges that he pled nolo contendere and

was convicted in 1985 to three sex offenses. He contends that his public defender provided

ineffective assistance in advising him to enter the plea because the defender did not warn him

about the consequences of such a plea, e.g., that he'd have to register as a sex offender, that he

could be subjected to a civil commitment as a sexually violent predator, and that his place of

residence might be affected by sex offender registration laws. His complaint suggests (but does

not actually allege) that his current incarceration is the result of a conviction or parole violation

for non-compliance with the residence requirements for registered sex offenders. Wade states

that he "would like [the] court to re-open" his criminal case, Complaint, p. 3, and allow him to

introduce DNA evidence to prove that he is not guilty. His complaint is now before the court

for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. 

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

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,

Case 3:07-cv-05390-SI Document 6 Filed 12/17/07 Page 1 of 2
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

or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

This civil rights action will be dismissed because Wade cannot challenge a criminal

conviction in a civil rights action. If Wade wants to challenge his conviction in federal court,

he must file a petition for writ of habeas corpus because a petition for writ of habeas corpus is

the exclusive method by which he may challenge a state court conviction in this court. Preiser

v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). 

Before he may file a federal petition, Wade must exhaust state judicial remedies, either

on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available

with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every issue he seeks to raise in federal

court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A),(c); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981). This

court recently received a letter from Wade stating that the Alameda County Superior Court

recently denied his habeas petition. A habeas petition in the trial court does not exhaust state

court remedies; the petitioner must file in the California Supreme Court to give the state's highest

court a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of his claims. 

There are two other procedural problems that Wade will likely face. First, a petitioner

must be in custody (e.g., in prison or on parole) for the conviction at the time he files his habeas

petition challenging that conviction. Second, a habeas petition must be filed before the

expiration of the one-year habeas statute of limitations, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The court does

not decide either the custody or timeliness issues today and instead will await the filing of a

petition (if that ever occurs) to decide whether either bars a federal habeas petition challenging

a conviction that occurred 22 years ago. 

 This action is dismissed without prejudice to Wade filing a habeas petition to challenge

a state court conviction. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2007 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05390-SI Document 6 Filed 12/17/07 Page 2 of 2