Smith v. District Attorney Office et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/8/12. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2012)

1
2
3

*E-Filed 6/8/12*

4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11

No. C 12-2547 RS (PR)

WAYNE W. SMITH,

12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE,
15 and REMA BREALL,
Defendants.

16

/

17
18

INTRODUCTION

19

This federal civil rights action was filed by a pro se state prisoner in state court.

20

Defendants removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The Court now

21

reviews the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). For the reasons stated herein, the

22

action is DISMISSED.
DISCUSSION

23
24
25
26

A.

Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

27
28

No. C 12-2547 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims and

2

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

3

be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.

4

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica

5

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

6

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

7

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

8

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

9

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

10

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

11

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions

12

cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from

13

the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994).

14

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

15

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and

16

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

17

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

18

B.

Legal Claims

19

In 2008, a San Francisco County Superior Court jury convicted plaintiff of the

20

possession and sale of cocaine, and the possession of heroin. In consequence, plaintiff was

21

sentenced to 13 years and 4 months in state prison. Plaintiff claims that defendants violated

22

his constitutional rights by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence about a prosecution

23

witness during his criminal trial, thereby rendering his conviction invalid.1 In order to

24

recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other

25
1

Plaintiff also has brought state law claims of negligence, false arrest, and fraud. Because
his federal claim will be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
27 his state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
26

No. C 12-2547 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

28
2

1

harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a

2

42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on

3

direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to

4

make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of

5

habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–487 (1994). A claim for damages

6

bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not

7

cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487. Where, as in the instant matter, a state prisoner seeks

8

damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must therefore consider whether a judgment in

9

favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it

10

would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the

11

conviction or sentence has been invalidated. Id. at 487.

12

In the instant matter, a judgment in favor of plaintiff that defendants had falsely

13

arrested him and failed to disclose exculpatory evidence would necessarily imply the

14

invalidity of his conviction or sentence. It is clear from the complaint that his convictions

15

have not been invalidated, however. Accordingly, plaintiff’s action barred by Heck, and the

16

action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff refiling such claims when he can

17

make such a showing. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants, and close the

18

file.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 8, 2012
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

No. C 12-2547 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

28
3