Johnson v. City of Oakland et al

Filing 7

ORDER FO DISMISSAL and ORDER granting 2 request to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 6/21/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LaPATRICK JOHNSON, G-62253,
Plaintiff(s),

11
vs.

12
13

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

14

Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 12-3129 CRB (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

15
16

Plaintiff, a prisoner at High Desert State Prison, has filed a pro se

17

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages for various wrongdoing he

18

claims resulted in his wrongful conviction.
DISCUSSION

19
20
21

A.

Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

22

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

23

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable

24

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

25

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

26

granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

27

relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however.

28

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

1

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

2

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States

3

was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting

4

under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

5

B.

Legal Claims

6

In order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

7

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would

8

render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the

9

conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive

10

order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination,

11

or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

12

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). A claim for damages bearing

13

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

14

cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487.

15

When a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court

16

must therefore consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would

17

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

18

complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the

19

conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. See id. A judgment in favor

20

of the plaintiff here would imply the invalidity of a state conviction which has not

21

already been invalidated. The instant allegations therefore fail to state a

22

cognizable claim under § 1983 and must be DISMISSED without prejudice. See

23

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 649 (1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49

24

F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995). 1

25
26

1

27

And to whatever extent plaintiff seeks to challenge either the fact or
duration of his confinement, his sole remedy is to file a petition for writ of habeas

28

2

1
2

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to

3

state a claim under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The dismissal is

4

without prejudice to reasserting the allegations in a new complaint if a cause of

5

actions later accrues.

6
7
8
9

Based solely on his affidavit of poverty, plaintiff's request to proceed in
forma pauperis (docket # 2) is granted.
The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order, terminate all
pending motions as moot and close the file.

10

SO ORDERED.

11

DATED:

12

June 21, 2012
CHARLES R BREYER
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.12\Johnson, L.12-3129.dismissal.wpd

24
25
26
27
28

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after exhausting state judicial remedies. See
Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998). Any such claim therefore is
dismissed without prejudice. See Trimble, 49 F.3d at 586.
3