Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06294/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06294-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of East Palo Alto Police Department
Defendant
County of San Mateo
Defendant
Jaime F. Guzman
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAIME F. GUZMAN,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO

POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-6294 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case was opened when plaintiff, who is a pretrial detainee at the San Mateo County

Jail, wrote a letter to the court which he characterized as his “official filing of a federal civil law

suit[]” against the above defendants. Because the letter, treated as a complaint, did not provide

the information necessary to allow the Court to conduct the initial screening required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a), it was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff has amended.

DISCUSSION

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

Case 3:07-cv-06294-WHA Document 14 Filed 02/27/08 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

se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

(9th Cir. 1990).

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 violation 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 contends that Palo Alto police officers subjected him to an “illegal

interrogation,” that he was entrapped, and that he was not allowed to make a phone call. 

The United States Supreme Court has held that 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 § 1983 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, 114 S. Ct.

2364, 2372 (1994). 

Heck applies to claims arising out of pending charges, as here. See Cabrera v. City of

Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 37, 380 (9th Cir. 1998) (Heck barred plaintiff's false arrest and

imprisonment claims until conviction was invalidated); Smithart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952

(9th Cir. 1996) (Heck barred plaintiff's claims that defendants lacked probable cause to arrest

him and brought unfounded criminal charges against him). Heck bars claims which necessarily

implicate the validity of pending criminal charges. See Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 107

F.3d 696, 700-01 (9th Cir. 1997). A civil claim which necessarily implicates the validity of

pending criminal charges does not accrue until after one has succeeded in the criminal realm. 

Id. (citing Heck). 

Therefore, this complaint fails to state a cognizable claim under § 1983 and must be

dismissed. See Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039, 1049 (9th Cir. 2002) (pretrial

detainee’s telephone access claim barred by Heck). 

Case 3:07-cv-06294-WHA Document 14 Filed 02/27/08 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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk

shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.07\GUZMAN6294.DSM.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-06294-WHA Document 14 Filed 02/27/08 Page 3 of 3