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
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?