(~ 

Theodore Shove et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

United States 

District Court Judges et al., 

Defendants. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 09-2316 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

JAN 25 2010 

Clerk, U.S. District ana 

Bankruptcy Courts 

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiffs' pro se complaint and application 

to proceed in forma pauperis. The applications will be granted and the case will be dismissed 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under that statute, the Court is required to screen a prisoner's 

complaint and dismiss it if, among other grounds, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted. 

Plaintiffs are nine prisoners on death row at San Quentin State Prison in California. They 

sue United States district judges in the Central, Eastern, Northern and Southern Districts of 

California, President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary 

Janet Napolitano, numerous United States senators and congressmen and a host of California 

defendants--including their capital defense counsel--for monetary damages and equitable relief. 

The 35-page complaint is difficult to decipher but it appears that plaintiffs are claiming that 

defendants engaged in a vast conspiracy to violate their rights during their criminal prosecutions. 
Despite the histrionics 1

, the complaint, supported by more than 300 pages of attachments, is in 

effect a challenge to the plaintiffs' death sentences. 

Because plaintiffs' success on the merits of the complaint would necessarily invalidate 

their convictions, they cannot recover monetary damages without first establishing that their 

convictions have been invalidated by "revers[al] on direct appeal, expunge[ment] by executive 

order, declar[ation of invalidity] by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or ... 

a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 

(1994). Plaintiffs have not made such a showing here. In addition, "it is well-settled that a 

[person] seeking relief from his conviction or sentence may not bring [] an action" for injunctive 

and declaratory relief because he has an available remedy in habeas. Williams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 

1339, 1340 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Chatman-Bey v. 

Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 808-10 (D.C. Cir. 1988)); see LoBue v. Christopher, 82 F.3d 1081, 

1082-84 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a declaratory 

judgment action where habeas corpus remedy was available in the location of plaintiffs 

custodian). Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this 

Memorandum Opinion. 

~ 

Date: January ~, 2010 

1 As part of their jurisdictional statement, plaintiffs state that they are asserting their 

claims under "Title 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5) [because] Domestic Terrorism, Treasonous Acts of 

Terrorism against Our Country are clearly being perpetrated for great financial and political gains 

for everyone involved." Compi. ~ 2. In addition, their most incredible claims seek to hold the 

defendants liable under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, 18 

U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. 

2