# (~ Theodore Shove 

### etal., Plaintiffs,
v.
United States District CourtJudges 

### et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil ActionNo. 09-2316

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED JAN 25 2010 Clerk, U.S. District ana Bankruptcy Courts

This matter is before the Court onreview ofplaintiffs'pro se complaint and application to proceed informapauperis. The applications will be granted and the case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Underthat statute, the Courtis requiredto screen a prisoner's complaint and dismiss it if, among other grounds, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which reliefcan be granted. Plaintiffs are nine prisoners ondeath row at San Quentin State Prison in California. They
sue United States districtjudges in the Central, Eastern, Northern and Southern Districts of California, PresidentBarack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary JanetNapolitano, numerous United States senators and congressmen and a host ofCalifornia defendants--including their capital defense counsel--for monetary damages and equitable relief. The 35-page complaint is difficultto decipherbut it appears that plaintiffs are claiming that defendants engaged in a vast conspiracy to violate their rights during their criminal prosecutions.Despite the histrionics1
, the complaint, supported by more than 300 pages ofattachments, is in effect a challenge to the plaintiffs' death sentences. Because plaintiffs' success onthe merits ofthe complaintwould necessarily invalidate their convictions, they cannotrecover monetary damages without first establishing that their convictions have been invalidated by "revers[al] on direct appeal, expunge[ment] byexecutive order, declar[ation ofinvalidity] by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or ... a federal court's issuance ofa writ ofhabeas 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 relieffrom his conviction or sentence may notbring [] an action" for injunctive and declaratoryreliefbecause 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 matterjurisdictionover a declaratory judgment action where habeas corpus remedy was available in the location ofplaintiffs custodian). Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.**~** Date: January**~,** 2010

1 As part oftheirjurisdictional 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 underthe Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. 2