Mathis v. CDCR et al

Filing 14

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 10/06/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. C-11-1085 TEH (PR)

CARDELL VAN MATHIS,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
et. al.,

16

Doc. ## 6, 7 & 11

Defendant(s).

17

/

18
19

I

20

Plaintiff Cardell Van Mathis, a California state prisoner

21

currently on parole, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42

22

U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional

23

rights concerning actions they took that led to the revocation of

24

his parole.

25

pauperis in a separate order.

26

court DISMISSES the instant complaint.

27

//

28

//

Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma
For the reasons stated below, the

1
2

II
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of

3

cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or

4

officer or employee of a governmental entity.

5

The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint,

6

or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous,

7

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

8

granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

9

from such relief.”

Id. § 1915A(b).

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

Pleadings filed by pro se

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

litigants, however, must be liberally construed.

11

627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

12

Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

13

Hebbe v. Pliler,

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must

14

allege two essential elements:

15

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that

16

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

17

color of state law.

(1) that a right secured by the

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

18
19
20

III
Plaintiff’s civil suit against Defendants on account of

21

their actions that led to a revocation of Plaintiff’s parole must be

22

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under the rationale of Heck v. Humphrey,

23

512 U.S. 477 (1994).

24

583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995).

25

See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d

Generally, Heck bars claims challenging the validity of an

26

arrest, prosecution or conviction.

27

697, 703 (9th Cir. 2006).

28

See Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d

Specifically, Heck bars a 42 U.S.C. §
2

1

1983 action for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

2

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness

3

would render a conviction or sentence invalid unless the conviction

4

or sentence first has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by

5

executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to

6

make such determination, or called into question by a federal

7

court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

8

486–87.

9

confinement resulting from a parole revocation hearing, as is the

Heck, 512 U.S. at

Heck also bars a challenge to the validity of the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

case here, until the parole board’s decision has been reversed,

11

expunged, set aside or called into question.

12

Pardons and Paroles Div., 68 F.3d 122, 123 (5th Cir. 1995).

13

therefore would bar any damages claim for the alleged improper

14

actions by Defendants that led to the revocation of Plaintiff’s

15

parole if such a claim would implicate the validity of the parole

16

revocation decision.

17

See Littles v. Bd. of
Heck

Because Plaintiff has not shown that the decision to

18

revoke his parole has been reversed, expunged, set aside or called

19

into question, his civil suit against Defendants is not cognizable

20

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487.

3

1

IV

2

For the foregoing reasons, the action is DISMISSED WITHOUT

3

PREJUDICE.

4

and close the file.

The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions as moot

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

DATED

10/6/2011
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.11\Mathis-11-1085-heck dismissal.wpd

4