Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20091113_0001426.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-10-21 20:37:23
Document Index: 569814207

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1915']

| Rogers v. Gilbert
Rogers v. Gilbert
TYRONE ROGERS, CDCR #V-35389, PLAINTIFF,v.JANE L. GILBERT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) & 1915A(b) [Doc. No. 5] WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
On July 20, 2009, Tyrone Rogers ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Centinela State Prison located in Imperial, California, and proceeding pro se, submitted a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2], along with a Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 3].
The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP, denied Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel and sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) & 1915A(b). See July 30, 2009 Order at 6-7. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court in its Order. Id. at 7. On September 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC").
Here, Plaintiff alleges that several San Diego Police Officers conspired to falsify testimony and perjure themselves during Plaintiff's criminal trial which resulted in his criminal conviction. However, a suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on alleged constitutional violations during a criminal trial amounts to an attack on the validity of Plaintiff's underlying criminal conviction, and as such, will not be cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless Plaintiff is able to show that his underlying conviction in his criminal case has already been invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
Heck held that "when a state prisoner seeks damages in a 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. But if the district court determines that the plaintiff's action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be allowed to proceed." Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 (emphasis in original). An action that is barred by Heck should be dismissed for failure to state a claim without prejudice to re-alleging claims for damages after the underlying conviction has been invalidated. Edwards, 520 U.S. at 649; Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995).
If Plaintiff were to succeed on his claims that the defendants conspired to provide perjured testimony, he would necessarily call into question the validity of his conviction and continuing incarceration. Plaintiff has not alleged that he has had his conviction declared invalid as required by Heck. Therefore, his First Amended Complaint, once again, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and this action is subject to dismissal without prejudice.*fn1 Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87.
In addition, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from the Defendants who were witnesses at his trial for allegedly committing perjury, these Defendants are absolutely immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(iii); § 1915A(b)(2). "Witnesses, including police witnesses, are immune from liability for their testimony in earlier proceedings even if they committed perjury." Paine v. City of Lompoc, 965 F.3d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 345 (1983)). "Witness immunity also extends to conspiracies to commit perjury." Id. (citing Franklin v. Terr, 201 F.3d 1098, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2000). See also Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 821 (9th Cir. 1989) (witnesses are absolutely immune from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for testimony given at trial, or for testimony given during adversarial pretrial proceedings); Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 157-58 (9th Cir. 1986).
In addition, Plaintiff's claims against the San Diego Deputy District Attorney who prosecuted his criminal action must likewise be dismissed on immunity grounds. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2). Criminal prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil damages suits premised upon acts committed within the scope of their official duties which are not administrative or investigative in nature, but rather are "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see also Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 272-73 (1993); Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 487-93 (1991).