Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120920_0012799.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-06 12:06:53
Document Index: 408489738

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 636', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 2254', '§ 1983']

| Edward Terrell v. Kevin Guest
Edward Terrell v. Kevin Guest
EDWARD TERRELL PLAINTIFF,v.KEVIN GUEST, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Turning to plaintiff's complaint, a problem with the legal basis for each of his claims is apparent. His allegations against his parole officer, defense attorney, and the sheriff either call into question the validity of his confinement on a past conviction and sentence (counts one and two) or the validity of a conviction and sentence which plaintiff appears to still be serving (counts three, four and five). Each count, therefore, appears to be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) ("in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been [set aside]. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983."). In Heck, an Indiana state prisoner brought a civil rights action under § 1983 for damages. Claiming that state and county officials violated his constitutional rights, he sought damages for improprieties in the investigation leading to his arrest, for the destruction of evidence, and for errors during trial. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the complaint, holding: in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under 1983.
Id. at 486. Plaintiff makes no showing that his underlying conviction or sentence was reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated; in fact, he does not identify the underlying conviction at issue.
In order to seek to invalidate or reverse his conviction or to obtain a new trial, plaintiff, as a petitioner, would have to pursue a petition for writ of habeas corpus:
Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004 (per curiam).
In other words, plaintiff, as a petitioner, "may challenge the validity of his arrest, prosecution, and conviction only by writ of habeas corpus." Id. Plaintiff may only proceed in this action for money damages if he can demonstrate that the underlying state court judgment against him has been expunged, dismissed, or otherwise invalidated. Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed but plaintiff will be granted leave to amend.
If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).*fn1
In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375
F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 8) is granted.