Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03166/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03166-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Director of Corrections
Defendant
David D. Harris
Plaintiff

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID D. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-03166-SI 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton, California, 

commenced this action by filing a pro se “writ of replevin complaint.” Docket No. 1. 

His complaint is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires 

the court to conduct a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 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). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica 

Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A claim that is incomprehensible may be dismissed 

as frivolous as it is without an arguable basis in law. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 641 

(9th Cir. 1989). 

The “writ of replevin complaint” filed in this action borders on the incomprehensible but 

appears to be an effort to set aside a fine that was imposed as part of the sentence in plaintiff’s state 

court criminal case.1 Plaintiff alleges that he was unaware of the fine at arraignment and that he 

 

1 This is just the latest in plaintiff’s efforts to attack his 1999 criminal conviction and 

sentence. His original petition for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed as untimely filed in 2008. 

Case 3:19-cv-03166-SI Document 12 Filed 12/02/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

nonetheless was held liable for unpaid fines. Id. at 2. He then alleges several nonsensical legal 

theories that appear to posit that he is real property, there should be a release of the lien on the real 

property (i.e., him), and different collateral should be used in place of him as some sort of bond. 

The allegations of the complaint make no sense. The deficient complaint is not made any more 

understandable by examination of the attachments to it, which consist of a copy of plaintiff’s birth 

certificate and several forms (i.e., “affidavit of individual surety,” “release of lien on real property,” 

“release of personal property from escrow,” “payment bond,” “bid bond,” and “performance bond”).

The complaint is dismissed because it is legally frivolous. Cf. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 

319, 327 (1989) (a claim is frivolous if it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or is 

clearly lacking any factual basis). The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

See Harris v. Yates, No. 07-cv-808 MHP. He next filed a “prayer for relief motion” that was 

construed to be a second or successive petition and dismissed in 2009. See Harris v. People of the 

State of California, No. 09-cv-2362 MHP. Several years later, he filed another petition for writ of 

habeas corpus that also was dismissed as an unauthorized second or successive petition in 2015. 

See Harris v. Macomber, No. 15-cv-3972 KAW. Last year, another “writ of replevin complaint”

presenting essentially the same allegations as those in his present complaint, but against a different 

defendant/respondent, was dismissed. See Harris v. Alameda County Superior Court, No. 18-cv3419 WHA.

Case 3:19-cv-03166-SI Document 12 Filed 12/02/19 Page 2 of 2