Knox v. The Sacramento County Public Defender's Office

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/2/10 ORDERING that plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED and this case is CLOSED.(Dillon, M)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Defendants. 15 / 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis. This case is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff's consent. Dkt. No. 5. On March 9, 2010, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff has timely filed an amended complaint. The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 1 ORDER vs. SACRAMENTO COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANTHONY MARCELOUS KNOX, Sr. Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-3537 KJN P

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "requires only `a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to `give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;" it must contain factual allegations sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. However, "[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only `give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555) (citations and internal quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, id., and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). Plaintiff's original complaint sought compensation from the Sacramento County Public Defender's Office for ineffective and unprofessional assistance of counsel. The court noted that pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), plaintiff had not demonstrated that his conviction or sentence had been invalidated, expunged or reversed and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to provide additional information. Plaintiff's amended complaint has not rectified the deficiencies of his prior 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

complaint. Plaintiff indicated that he is serving a term of 26 years to life in state prison, but there is no indication that his conviction has been invalidated, expunged or reversed. Thus, plaintiff cannot proceed with this action for money damages and this case should be dismissed and closed. As noted before, in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), 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 conduct during his trial ("illegal and unlawful voice identification procedure"). Convicted on voluntary manslaughter charges, and serving a fifteen year term, plaintiff did not seek injunctive relief or release from custody. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the complaint and held that: 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. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486. The Court expressly held that a cause of action for damages under § 1983

18 concerning a criminal conviction or sentence cannot exist unless the conviction or sentence has 19 been invalidated, expunged or reversed. Id. 20 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's 21 complaint is dismissed and this case is closed. 22 DATED: April 2, 2010 23 24 25 26
knox3537.dism

_____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3