Filed 5/27/22 Silva v. City of Merced CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

HELIODORO A. SILVA,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

CITY OF MERCED,

Defendant and Respondent.

F082684

(Super. Ct. No. 20CV-02515)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Timothy W. 

Salter, Judge.

Heliodoro A. Silva, in pro. per, for Plaintiff and Appellant. 

Allen, Glaessner, Hazelwood & Werth, Kevin P. Allen and Lori A. Sebransky, for 

Defendant and Respondent. 

-ooOoo-

* Before Smith, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.
2.

Appellant Heliodoro Silva, an inmate serving two consecutive life terms, filed this 

civil suit for damages against the City of Merced in connection with his prior criminal 

case. The civil complaint alleged (1) the prosecutor and investigating detective involved 

in his prior criminal case, along with a judge who denied his petition for writ of habeas 

corpus challenging his criminal convictions, wrongfully conspired to secure and uphold 

his convictions, and (2) the investigating detective discriminated against him by punching 

him in the stomach to obtain a false confession. The trial court sustained the City of 

Merced’s demurrer without leave to amend. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

On September 2, 2020, plaintiff and appellant, Heliodoro Silva, filed a civil 

complaint in the Merced County Superior Court against Superior Court Judge Jeanne 

Schechter, the City of Merced, the County of Merced, a county prosecutor (Matthew 

Serrato), and a police detective (Sam Sanchez). This appeal concerns the claims against 

the City of Merced. 

Silva stated in the complaint: “The Plaintiff is serving two consecutive life 

without the possibility of parole sentences for ... aiding and abetting two murders, 

conviction[s] [dated] November 4, 2016.” He further noted: “Plaintiff ... is actually and 

factually innocent.” (Unnecessary capitalization omitted.) The complaint was filed 

shortly after Judge Schechter denied, on May 11, 2020, a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus filed by Silva, challenging his convictions. 

The complaint included two causes of action. The first cause of action was for 

“civil conspiracy.” With respect to this cause of action, Silva alleged with reference to 

his prior convictions, that the prosecutor, investigating detective, and Judge Schechter 

had conspired to secure and uphold his convictions. He further alleged that, as part of the 

conspiracy, the investigating detective had punched him in the stomach to coerce him 

into giving a false confession. Silva also alleged that, as part of the conspiracy, the 

prosecutor played at his criminal trial, a recording of his confession that omitted evidence 
3.

of the detective’s coercive tactics. Finally, Silva alleged that Judge Schechter, as part of 

the conspiracy, declined to issue subpoenas that would have uncovered the unredacted 

recording of Silva’s false confession and denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus 

challenging his convictions. 

The second cause of action was for “discrimination.” (Unnecessary capitalization 

omitted) With reference to this cause of action, Silva contended that the investigating 

detective on his prior criminal case, “committed an act of violence against him because of 

his race, national origen [sic], citizenship, primary language (which is Spanish)[,] [and] 

immigration status,” in order to “extract [a] false confession out of him.” 

The complaint premised both causes of action on Article III, Section 5 of the 

California Constitution; Civil Code sections 51.7 and 52.1 (Bane Act); and 42 United 

States Code section 1983. 

The complaint alleged that the City of Merced was liable for the conduct of 

Detective Sam Sanchez. The complaint sought damages from all defendants, including 

the City of Merced. 

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District 

of California. The federal district court dismissed all federal claims and remanded the 

case back to the Merced County Superior Court for adjudication of state law claims only. 

The City of Merced filed a demurrer, which the trial court sustained without leave 

to amend. The trial court found that Silva’s state law claims were barred by Yount v. City 

of Sacramento (2008) 43 Cal.4th 885 (Yount). The trial court ruled: “Here, there is no 

dispute that there was (1) a criminal conviction, (2) no dispute that a judgment in favor of 

Plaintiff would necessarily imply that the prior conviction or sentence was invalid, and 

(3) the Plaintiff’s prior conviction or sentence was not invalidated or terminated in his 

favor. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Yount v. City of Sacramento (2008) 

43 Cal.4th 885, 893-894.” (Italics added.) 
4.

The court further ruled: “[Since] there is no amendment to the Complaint that can 

state a cause of action, at least so long as Plaintiff’s criminal conviction stands, the 

demurrer by the City of Merced must be sustained without leave to amend.” 

(Unnecessary capitalization omitted.) Finally, the court noted: “While the demurrer also 

asserts that the Complaint is barred for failure to allege compliance with the Government 

Claims Act and is barred by the statute of limitations, the court need not address those 

claims because the finding that the matter is barred by Yount v. City of Sacramento

(2008) 43 Cal.4th 885 is dispositive.” (Italics added.) 

Judgment was entered in favor of the City of Merced. This appeal followed. 

DISCUSSION

Trial Court Properly Sustained City of Merced’s Demurrer to the Complaint and 

Properly Denied Leave to Amend

“[T]he trial court’s judgment is presumed to be correct, and the appellant has the 

burden to prove otherwise by presenting legal authority on each point made and factual 

analysis, supported by appropriate citations to the material facts in the record; otherwise, 

the argument may be deemed forfeited.” (Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647, 

655.) Here, Silva has waived all issues on appeal because he has not properly framed any 

asserted errors on the part of the trial court or supported his claims with reasoned 

argument and citations to appropriate legal authorities and the record. (See Denham v. 

Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [“ ‘A judgment or order of the lower court is 

presumed correct ... and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ”]; Benach v. County of Los 

Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 [when an appellant asserts a point, “but fails to 

support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority,” we treat the point as 

waived].) In any event, there is no merit to this appeal. 

“When the trial court sustains a demurrer, we review the complaint de novo to 

determine whether it contains sufficient facts to state a cause of action.” (Glen Oaks 

Estates Homeowners Assn. v. Re/Max Premier Properties, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 
5.

913, 918.) “ ‘While the decision to sustain or overrule a demurrer is a legal ruling subject 

to de novo review on appeal, the granting of leave to amend involves an exercise of the 

trial court’s discretion. [Citations.] When the trial court sustains a demurrer without

leave to amend, we must also consider whether the complaint might state a cause of 

action if a defect could reasonably be cured by amendment.” (Green Valley Landowners 

Assn. v. City of Vallejo (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 425, 432.) “ ‘If the plaintiff cannot show 

an abuse of discretion, the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer without leave to 

amend must be affirmed.’ ” (Ibid.)

Respondent, City of Merced, argues the trial court properly sustained its demurrer 

without leave to amend. We agree with respondent and affirm. 

Heck v. Humphrey (1994) 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (Heck), held that, “when a state 

prisoner seeks damages in a [title 42 United States Code section 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.” The California Supreme Court aligned Heck with California law in Yount v. 

Sacramento, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 902: “Heck, of course, is a rule of federal law that 

applies only to federal causes of action that challenge the validity of a state conviction. 

[Citation.] But we cannot think of a reason to distinguish between section 1983 and a 

state tort claim arising from the same alleged misconduct and, as stated above, the parties 

offer none.” 

Borrowing from Heck, Yount prescribed a three-part analysis for assessing state 

tort claims raised in connection with prior criminal proceedings. The Heck/Yount

analysis requires consideration of the following factors: (1) was there an underlying 

conviction relating to the tort claim; (2) would a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the 

tort action necessarily imply the invalidity of the prior conviction; and (3) if so, was the 

prior conviction or sentence already invalidated or otherwise favorably terminated. (See 
6.

Fetters v. County of Los Angeles (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 825, 834-835; Yount, supra, 43 

Cal.4th at p. 902.)

The City of Merced argues that here, “[a]ll three elements [of the Heck/Yount

analysis] support the trial court’s decision.” First, the City of Merced points out that “it is 

undisputed that Silva possesses a relevant criminal conviction,” as the complaint asserts 

“he is serving back-to-back life sentences for aiding and abetting two murders” and that 

his “convictions result[ed] from his incident-related confession.” 

Second, the City of Merced notes: “[I]t is undisputed that success on either of 

Silva’s state-law claims—discrimination or civil conspiracy—would invalidate his 

convictions. Both are rooted in the same premise: that law enforcement allegedly 

carried-out an improper incident-related investigation (e.g., punching him to obtain a 

sham confession), thereby leading to Silva’s alleged wrongful arrest and conviction. 

There is no purported conspiracy or discrimination without Silva’s alleged beating and 

alleged false confession.” The City of Merced adds that because Silva’s complaint 

attacks the lawfulness of his confession and the validity of the evidence presented to the 

jury, success on either of his claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his 

convictions. 

Third, the City of Merced contends: “[I]t is undisputed that neither of Silva’s 

convictions have been set aside or otherwise invalidated. The Complaint admits his 

habeas petition was denied ... and admits he is currently serving back-to-back life 

sentences.” 

Silva, for his part, does not address either Heck or Yount in his briefs. Nor does 

Silva make any substantive reference to the trial court’s decision other than to observe 

that “Plaintiff did not [need] to win his criminal case before suing.” 

We affirm the trial court’s decision. (See Guerrero v. Gates (9th Cir. 2006) 442 

F.3d 697, 703-704 [claim of conspiracy among police officers to bring false charges 

barred by Heck]; Rodriguez v. City of Stockton (9th Cir. 2016) 642 F.Appx. 764, [where 
7.

plaintiff alleged conspiracy to arrest and convict him, “[t]he district court properly 

dismissed Rodriguez’s action as Heck-barred because success in the action would 

necessarily imply the invalidity of his criminal conviction, and Rodriguez has failed to 

allege facts sufficient to show that his conviction has been invalidated”]; Long v. Atl. City 

Police Dept. (3d Cir. 2012) 670 F.3d 436, 447 [“Long’s complaint seeks the sort of relief 

that is plainly barred by Heck because he seeks § 1983 relief on the ground that the 

defendants conspired to obtain a capital murder conviction against him, but he has not 

demonstrated that his conviction has already been invalidated.”]; Lopez v. City of Phoenix

(9th Cir. 2015) 618 Fed.Appx. 326, 327 [where plaintiff alleged constitutional violations 

vis-à-vis his criminal trial and conviction, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal and found 

the case Heck-barred, since “[s]uccess on the merits of his claims would necessarily 

imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, and [the plaintiff] failed to allege facts 

sufficient to show that either has been invalidated”].) 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Each party to bear its own costs on appeal.