Henry James Holmes v. Robert Forman et al
ORDER OF DISMISSAL CASE by Judge David O. Carter, Reference of this matter to the Magistrate Judge is VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims are dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations and the rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Judgment shall be entered accordingly. [See document for further information.] (es)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
HENRY JAMES HOLMES,
No. ED CV 22-01102-DOC (DFM)
Order of Dismissal
ROBERT FORMAN et al.,
On June 30, 2022, Plaintiff Henry James Holmes, a Pennsylvania
resident proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. See Dkt. 1 (“Complaint”). The Complaint arises from events
surrounding Plaintiff’s 2000 arrest and conviction in California for assault with
intent to commit rape. Liberally construed, it asserts that several Riverside
Police Officers falsely arrested and imprisoned him based on fabricated
evidence. It names as Defendants former and current Riverside Police Officers
Robert Forman, B. Smith, D. Corbett, Abel Soria, and H. Baker, each in his
individual capacity. See id. at 3-4. 1
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must screen the
On August 12, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in
forma pauperis. See Dkt. 4.
Complaint before ordering service of process for purposes of determining
whether the action is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which
relief might be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
On June 1, 2000, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to assault with intent to commit
rape pursuant to a plea agreement that provided a prison sentence of 2 years.
People v. Holmes, 32 Cal. 4th 432, 437 (2004); People v. Holmes, No.
E027589, 2001 WL 1386192, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2001). As part of the
plea agreement, Plaintiff also pleaded guilty to two infractions—operating a
taxi without a license and failure to appear in court—arising from two
unrelated cases. See 2001 WL 1386192, at *1 n.2. Plaintiff was sentenced to
the agreed-upon term 2 years in prison. See id. at *1.
On June 15, 2000, Plaintiff wrote a letter to the trial court requesting to
withdraw his plea based on his counsel’s alleged misadvisement about the
credit he would receive in the state prison for time served. See id. On July 24,
2000, his counsel declared a conflict of interest and asked to be relieved. See id.
The trial court relieved her and appointed special counsel to assist Plaintiff
with his motion to withdraw his plea. See id. At the hearing, however, the
special counsel withdrew the motion because Plaintiff had begun to serve his
sentence and the trial court no longer had jurisdiction over the motion. See id.
On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the trial court failed to establish a
sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea and failed to perform the independent
inquiry required under California law to satisfy itself that a factual basis for the
plea existed. See id. Plaintiff also argued that he must be permitted to
withdraw his plea because he was misadvised about credits he would receive in
state prison. See id. at *2. Nonetheless, the judgment was affirmed by the
California Court of Appeal, see id. at *2-3, whose judgment was in turn
affirmed by the California Supreme Court in a published decision, see Holmes,
32 Cal. 4th at 443.
SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff alleges the following. On March 24, 2000, Officer Forman,
acting without probable cause, issued a citation charging Plaintiff with
misdemeanor sexual battery. See Complaint at 7. The alleged victim “refused
to be checked by doctors for any injuries.” Id. Officer Forman wrote a “false
initial” police report, and Officers B. Smith and D. Corbett “fabricated a
suppl[emental] police report” stating that the alleged victim was transported to
the hospital, which was false. Id. at 2, 7. 2
On March 28 and April 2 and 9, 2000, Officer H. Baker, also acting
without probable cause, issued three citations for issues with Plaintiff’s truck:
for its having tinted windows, for its having an air freshener hanging from the
center rearview mirror, and for Plaintiff’s using it to operate an illegal taxi
service. See id. at 4. The three citations were issued to Plaintiff “for filing
misconduct complaints against” Officer Baker. Id. The truck was impounded
under California’s abandonment laws. See id.
On May 8, 2000, Officer Forman arrested Plaintiff “without probable
cause” on felony assault and battery charges, although “on [a] cour[t]
warrant.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff entered into a plea agreement, but the agreement
was invalid, Plaintiff alleges, because there was “no mandatory probation
report presented to [the] court before sentencing,” the trial court “failed to
Plaintiff attaches a partially-redacted Riverside Police Department
Initial Report dated March 24, 2000. See Complaint at 9. According to the
victim, Plaintiff touched her breast and pelvic area, grabbed the back of her
neck, and tried to force her head down to his exposed penis. See id. A followup interview with the victim at her residence confirmed the incident in greater
detail. See id. at 10.
stipulate to a medical report,” and Plaintiff “did not receive half-time credits as
promised by [his] trial attorney.” Id. at 10.
On April 28, 2022, Officer Soria obstructed justice and denied Plaintiff
fundamental rights by “refusing to remove false sex charges from [Plaintiff’s]
criminal record.” Id. at 7; see also id. at 5 (Petition to Seal and Destroy Adult
Plaintiff requests “relief . . . for 4 counts of false arrest,” including once
in 2014 in the state of Pennsylvania; “relief for defamation of character, relief
for all sex charges on [his] record”; that his name be restored to “the Riverside
County Housing list” 3; “relief for all Megan’s Law registration in both”
California and Pennsylvania; “relief for unlawful detainment in both states”;
“relief for loss of wages from the Riverside School District, punitive damages,
compensatory damages for mental stress, relief for denial of employment and
Section 8 housing”; and “relief for CDC [California Department of
Corrections] sending [him] to some prison [drug and alcohol] treatment
facility.” Id. at 8.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The following standards govern the Court’s screening of the Complaint.
A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for
two reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under
a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d
696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In determining whether the complaint states a claim
on which relief may be granted, its allegations of material fact must be taken as
true and construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. See Love v. United
The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff’s Request to Be Placed Active
back on Riverside County Housing Authority List in the Spot It Was Placed
and the documents attached thereto. See Dkt. 5.
States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). Since Plaintiff is appearing pro se,
the Court must construe the allegations of the complaint liberally and afford
Plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police
Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). However, “the liberal pleading
standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil
rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not
initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th
Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).
Plaintiff’s factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level . . . on the assumption that all the allegations in the
complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
If the Court finds that a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state
a claim, the Court has discretion to dismiss with or without leave to amend.
See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Leave
to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the
complaint could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. See id. at 113031; see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting
that “[a] pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint, and
some notice of its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies
of the complaint could not be cured by amendment”) (citing Noll v. Carlson,
809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)). However, if, after careful consideration,
it is clear that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the Court may
dismiss without leave to amend. See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105-06.
Plaintiff’s Claims are Barred by the Statute of Limitations
Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations. In
determining the timeliness of § 1983 claims, federal courts borrow the statute
of limitations and tolling rules that are applicable to personal-injury claims in
the forum state. See TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1999). In
California, the statute of limitations for a personal injury claim is 2 years. See
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1. Incarceration allows a plaintiff to toll the statute
of limitations for up to an additional 2 years. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1.
A § 1983 claim accrues when plaintiff “knows or has reason to know of the
injury which is the basis of the action.” Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp., 923
F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). Accordingly, Plaintiff had up
to 4 years from the date that he knew or had reason to know of his injuries to
file his claims.
The conduct that caused Plaintiff’s alleged injuries took place in 2000,
and Plaintiff began serving his 2-year sentence in 2000. See Holmes, 2001 WL
1386192, at *1. Plaintiff alleges that his injury has continued in recent years
because he has been required to register as a sex offender, has received death
threats from his neighbors concerning his sex-offender status, and was arrested
in Pennsylvania in 2014 for failure to maintain proper registration. See
Complaint at 3, 8, 13; Dkt. 5 at 5; Holmes v. Cisneros, No. 21-2127 (C.D. Cal.
petition filed Dec. 20, 2021), Dkt. 1 at 29-30 (alleging arrest at gunpoint from
his apartment in Pennsylvania in 2014 due to failure to report his new address
to the Pennsylvania state police within 48 hours of moving). However, none of
these later events have shed any new light on the conduct of Defendants that
Plaintiff alleges violated his rights. In other words, as of more than 20 years
ago, Plaintiff knew or should have known everything he knows now about the
alleged conduct that is the basis of his action. Consequently, Plaintiff’s § 1983
claims fall well outside the 4-year limitations period and are time-barred.
Pro se litigants are generally entitled to notice of a complaint’s
deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to the dismissal of an action.
Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).
However, where amendment would be futile, a complaint may properly be
dismissed without leave to amend. See McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369
F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are time-barred by the
statute of limitations and are not capable of being cured by amendment. See
Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31.
Plaintiff’s Claims are Also Heck-Barred
Plaintiff’s claims are also barred by the rule established in Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In Heck, the Supreme Court addressed the
question “whether a state prisoner may challenge the constitutionality of his
conviction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,” id. at 478, and held:
[T]o 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. . . . 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 486-87; see also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (holding
that Heck doctrine applies regardless the relief sought if success in action
would necessarily demonstrate invalidity of confinement or its duration).
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Heck. Plaintiff was convicted of assault
with the intent to commit rape and other offenses. See Holmes, 32 Cal. 4th at
443. Plaintiff now seeks damages and equitable relief for his arrests,
imprisonment, sex-offender registration, the impoundment of his truck, and
the denial of a recent petition to seal and destroy arrest records. See Complaint
at 5, 8. Judgment in his favor would require a finding that there was no
probable cause for his arrests and an insufficient factual basis for his guilty
plea, which would undermine the validity of his conviction. Accordingly, these
claims may not be brought in a § 1983 action unless he establishes that the
conviction was reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by
the issuance of a federal writ of habeas corpus. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87.
The allegations in the Complaint do not establish that any of these events has
occurred. Therefore, his § 1983 claims must be dismissed.
Reference of this matter to the Magistrate Judge is VACATED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are
dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations and the rule of
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
Dated: January 19, 2023
DAVID O. CARTER
United States District Judge
DOUGLAS F. McCORMICK
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?