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

JULIO PEDRAZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WATSONVILLE POLICE 

DEPARTMENT 

OFFICER I. RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-2247 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Julio Pedraza, an inmate at the Santa Clara County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint, noted a deficiency in

it and permitted Pedraza to file an amended complaint. Pedraza's amended complaint is now

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

DISCUSSION

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). 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

28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1),(2). 

Case 3:09-cv-02247-MHP Document 8 Filed 07/23/10 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

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 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. See West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

In his amended complaint, Pedraza alleges that he was subjected to a vehicle stop

without justification by Watsonville police officer I. Rodriguez. He contends that the vehicle

"was stopped solely on the basis of ethnicity. Two Hispanic male of dark complexion." 

Amended Complaint, p. 3 (errors in source). (The original complaint provides the additional

details that the event occurred on the evening of October 26, 2008, and that he was a

passenger in the vehicle.) 

Pedraza neglects to mention in his complaint and amended complaint that he pled

guilty and was convicted of a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (unlawful reentry of a removed

alien) based on that arrest. See United States v. Pedraza-Tellez, CR 08-786 JW at docket # 4

(indictment alleging that he was found in the United States on or about October 26, 2008

after having been previously removed from the country) and docket # 27 (minutes for entry

of guilty plea). Although Pedraza's pleadings omit mention of this information, the court

takes judicial notice of the court's own records showing the conviction. See Fed. R. Evid.

201. The existence of that conviction requires the dismissal of the complaint.

A prisoner-plaintiff generally is precluded from obtaining damages in a § 1983 action

for alleged constitutional violations in connection with the criminal proceedings against him

as long as the conviction remains in place. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), held

that a plaintiff cannot bring a civil rights action for damages for a wrongful conviction or

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a

conviction or sentence invalid, unless that conviction or sentence already has been

determined to be wrongful. See id. at 486-87. A conviction or sentence may be determined

to be wrongful by, for example, being reversed on appeal or being set aside when a state or

federal court issues a writ of habeas corpus. See id. The Heck rule also prevents a person

from bringing an action that -- even if it does not directly challenge the conviction or other

Case 3:09-cv-02247-MHP Document 8 Filed 07/23/10 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

decision -- would imply that the conviction or other decision was invalid. The Heck rule

applies to Fourth Amendment claims such as those asserted by Pedraza. See Whitaker v.

Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 583-84 (9th Cir. 2007) (civil rights plaintiffs from challenging the

search and seizure of evidence upon which their criminal charges and convictions were

based); Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir. 2000); Smithart v. Towery, 79

F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir. 1996) ("There is no question that Heck bars [plaintiff's] claims that

defendants lacked probable cause to arrest him and brought unfounded criminal charges

against him"). A determination that the search or seizure was unlawful would imply the

invalidity of the conviction, and therefore could not proceed as long as the conviction was in

place. See Whitaker, 486 F.3d at 584. 

Here, a determination in Pedraza's favor would be inconsistent with his conviction for

the § 1326 offense that has one of its elements his unlawful presence in the United States. 

Heck bars the claim that Pedraza was subjected to an unlawful search and seizure because his

conviction is still in place. 

Pedraza's motion for extension of time to file his amended complaint is GRANTED. 

(Docket # 6.) The amended complaint is accepted as timely filed.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff filing

a new action for damages if his conviction is ever set aside. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2010 ______________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02247-MHP Document 8 Filed 07/23/10 Page 3 of 3