Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02109/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02109-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Ray Bredfield
Plaintiff
Siskiyou County
Defendant

Document Text:

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

DONALD RAY BREDFIELD 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

POLICE OFFICER, CITY OF

HAYWARD, 

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2109 JSW (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AS MOOT, AND

DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Docket no. 6)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the state of California, filed this pro se civil rights complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Central District of

California. Plaintiff paid the full $250.00 filing fee. At the time, Plaintiff was confined at

Atascadero State Hospital. The district court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend

because Plaintiff failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint from the Siskiyou

County Jail. The only named defendant was "Police Officer for City of Hayward." In an

order dated May 9, 2005, the district court ordered the complaint transferred to the Northern

District on venue grounds. On October 25, 2005, Plaintiff notified this Court that he now is

incarcerated at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff alleges that in April of 1999, he was hit in the head by a police officer for the

city of Hayward. He maintains that as a result he suffered permanent brain injury which

makes it difficult for him to think and perceive things. He states that he was wrongfully

accused and is not guilty of the crime for which he now is incarcerated. He alleges

ineffective assistance of trial counsel. He seeks an investigation into his illegal incarceration

and monetary damages. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Case 3:05-cv-02109-JSW Document 7 Filed 01/03/06 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

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. 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, 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).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a violation of 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks damages for the alleged violation of his constitutional rights in

connection with his conviction and imprisonment. In order to recover damages for allegedly

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose

unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 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, 512 U.S. 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 § 1983. Id.

at 487. 

When a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider

whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his

conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can

demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Id. The court

Case 3:05-cv-02109-JSW Document 7 Filed 01/03/06 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

Order Granting Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.01\Ortiz033 3

should not stay any § 1983 claim for damages implicating the validity of a criminal

conviction or sentence until state criminal and collateral proceedings are completed. 

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 649 (1997). Heck makes it clear that a § 1983 "cause of

action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional conviction or sentence does not accrue

until the conviction or sentence has been invalidated." Heck, 512 U.S. at 489-90 (footnote

omitted). This means that any such claim is not cognizable and therefore should be

dismissed. See Edwards, 520 U.S. at 649; Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1025 (9th Cir.

1997) (claim barred by Heck may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6)); Trimble v. City of

Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (claim barred by Heck may be dismissed sua

sponte and without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915). 

Plaintiff alleges that because of the force used against him by a Hayward police

officer he suffered a brain injury which led to his unlawful conviction and imprisonment. He

asks the Court to order a full investigation of the surrounding circumstances and for damages

for his illegal imprisonment. Because Plaintiff's claim would, if meritorious, imply the

invalidity of his state conviction and imprisonment, this action must be DISMISSED. The

dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff bringing a new action raising this claim should he

satisfy the Heck pleading requirements. 

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. 

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot because Plaintiff paid

the filing fee. (Docket no. 6.) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 3, 2006 

 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02109-JSW Document 7 Filed 01/03/06 Page 3 of 3