Erwin Lashun Webster et al v. County of Los Angeles et al

Filing 65

ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. For the reasons set forth above, the action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend. (See Order for further details) Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (vm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

DERWIN LASHUN WEBSTER,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17

Case No. CV 12-656 ODW (MRW)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
et al.,
Defendants.

18
19
20
21

The Court summarily dismisses Plaintiff’s long-pending civil rights action:
(a) as Heck-barred; and (b) for failing to prosecute or abide by court orders.

22

***

23

Plaintiff was arrested in 2006 on state drug trafficking offenses. As a

24

consequence of his arrest, Plaintiff remained in local custody for several years until

25

his trial and conviction. Additionally, according to his complaint, his children

26

were removed from his custody. (Docket # 20 at 2.)

27
28

In 2012, Plaintiff filed a civil rights action in this Court. The gist of his
claims was that investigators and prosecutors falsely arrested him, prosecuted him,

1

and used false evidence to convict him. (Docket # 3 at 4-7.) Magistrate Judge

2

Wilner declined to serve the complaint on any of the named parties after screening

3

the pleading. Instead, he issued a Report and Recommendation (later adopted by

4

the district judge) to: (a) dismiss the action as to the prosecutors as time-barred;

5

and (b) stay the action against the other law enforcement personnel based on Heck

6

v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007).

7

(Docket # 20.)

8
9

In the interim, Plaintiff was convicted of the drug charges. The trial court
sentenced him to a term of over 30 years in prison. In 2014, the state appellate

10

court affirmed the conviction. People v. Webster, 2014 WL 2814856 (Cal. App.

11

2014). However, even though Plaintiff filed semi-regular reports with the Court

12

regarding the status of his criminal case, he failed to tell the Court that he lost his

13

appeal. As a result, in April 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to explain the status

14

of his criminal case. (Docket # 56.) He failed to do so, instead filing an inaccurate

15

and broad statement that his state case was still ongoing. (Docket # 57.)

16

The Court then lifted the stay in the action in May 2016. (Docket # 58.)

17

The Court further ordered Plaintiff to submit a statement demonstrating “how he is

18

lawfully entitled to pursue” the claims relating to his arrest further in light of his

19

conviction and Heck. (Id.) The Court informed Plaintiff that his failure to respond

20

substantively to the Court’s order could lead to the dismissal of the case under

21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.

22

Plaintiff submitted several requests for extension of time to respond to the

23

Court’s inquiry. (Docket # 59, 61.) He also asked for another indefinite stay of the

24

case. (Docket # 63.) However, five months after the Court lifted the stay over

25

Plaintiff’s four-year-old case alleging ten-year-old misconduct, he still has not

26

responded to the Court’s basic inquiry as to why he can maintain this action in

27

federal court.

28
2

1
2

***
1.

A prisoner may not pursue a Section 1983 claim where “a judgment in

3

favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or

4

sentence.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. If judgment in favor of a plaintiff would imply

5

the invalidity of a criminal conviction, then the “complaint must be dismissed

6

unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already

7

been invalidated.” Id.; Stewart v. Roderick, ___ F. App’x ___, 2016 WL 4474829

8

(9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2016) (same).

9

2.

Plaintiff’s claims against the state investigators allege that they falsely

10

arrested him, maliciously prosecuted him, and improperly incarcerated him.

11

(Docket # 20 at 2.) Those claims necessarily imply the invalidity of his recently-

12

affirmed conviction. As a result, Heck mandates their dismissal. Lawrence v. City

13

of Chino, No. CV 04-6466 DSF (SHx), 2006 WL 4811344 at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2006)

14

(“Here, however, the section 1983 claims are based on Plaintiff's alleged false

15

arrest for the robbery. A judgment in Plaintiff's favor would not necessarily imply

16

that his conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition was invalid.”);

17

Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)

18

(claims for false arrest and false imprisonment not cognizable; a finding of no

19

probable cause to arrest plaintiff for disturbing the peace necessarily implies that

20

plaintiff's conviction for disturbing the peace was invalid).

21

3.

Plaintiff’s vague claims involving the termination of his custody of his

22

children – and the involvement of law enforcement in that proceeding – fare no

23

better. The bare fact that Plaintiff will serve three decades in prison following his

24

lawful 2006 arrest makes his claims of unconstitutional misconduct frivolous.

25

Moreover, Plaintiff essentially wants this federal court intervene in or evaluate the

26

merits of Plaintiff’s state court child custody action. But a federal court must

27

abstain from interfering with the state judicial process. Younger v. Harris,

28
3

1

401 U.S. 37 (1971); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). Any claim

2

that the effect of Plaintiff’s lawful arrest led to the loss of custody of his children is

3

not remediable in this federal civil rights action.

4

4.

Dismissal is also proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.

5

Rule 41(b) provides that if a party “fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules

6

or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against

7

it.” Dismissal also may be ordered by the Court sua sponte. Link v. Wabash R.R.,

8

370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962). Dismissal of a civil action under Rule 41 may be

9

appropriate to advance the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of

10

litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and to avoid the risk of prejudice

11

to defendants. Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F. 3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010).

12

Additionally, a court should consider the public policy favoring disposition of

13

cases on their merits and the availability of less drastic alternatives in its

14

evaluation. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988).

15

5.

These factors weigh heavily in favor of dismissal. The Court stayed

16

Plaintiff’s action – rather than dismiss it outright – during the pendency of

17

Plaintiff’s criminal case and appeal. When the Court discovered that the state

18

criminal action was over, it became apparent that Plaintiff had no legitimate

19

interest in moving the case forward (despite filing his formulaic, periodic status

20

reports). Further, the Court gave Plaintiff numerous opportunities to explain the

21

merits of his claims after the lifting of the stay. Plaintiff failed to respond

22

substantively. The Court, the named defendant, and the public have a considerable

23

interest in the prompt resolution of this action. Omstead, 594 F. 3d at 1084.

24

Furthermore, because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who has been unable to abide by

25

the Court’s orders to date, no sanction short of dismissal will be effective in

26

moving this case forward. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440.

27

***

28
4

1

Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the action is hereby DISMISSED

2

without prejudice and without leave to amend. Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa,

3

49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (Heck dismissals are without prejudice);

4

McQuillon v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 2004) (where

5

amendment would be futile, complaint may be dismissed without leave to amend).

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: October 6, 2016

10
11

___________________________________
HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13

Presented by:

14
15
16
17

____________________________________
HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5