Moreno v. The Superior Court of the State of California, City & County of San Francisco

Filing 10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 02/13/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 No. C-12-6400 TEH (PR) ZACHARY MORENO, v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 11 United States District Court For the Northern District of California Defendant. 12 / 13 14 I 15 Plaintiff Zachary Moreno filed the present pro se prisoner 16 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 detention based on allegations that his preliminary hearing was too 18 confusing for him to understand because witnesses from two cases 19 “testified as if it was a double arraignment, crossing all facts.” 20 Plaintiff asserts that this is violated his right to a fair and 21 separate trial. 22 his conditions of confinement, but the constitutionality of his 23 criminal proceedings. 24 declaratory relief, the dismissal of charges in his two cases and 25 release from custody. 26 pauperis (IFP). 27 the Court. 28 Comp. at 3. His complaint challenges his He alleges that he is not challenging Comp. at 1. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief, He also applies for leave to proceed in forma His IFP application is granted by separate Order of 1 II 2 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 In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 6 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a 7 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from 8 a defendant who is immune from such relief. 9 § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 28 U.S.C. Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 10 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 11 1990). 12 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must 13 allege two essential elements: (1) that a violation of a right 14 secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 15 violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a 16 person acting under the color of state law. 17 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 18 19 West v. Atkins, 487 III In this case, Plaintiff has improperly filed his claim as 20 a civil rights action. 21 relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a petition for habeas 22 corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act 23 of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 24 Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars 25 affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus.’” 26 McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 (2006). “‘Federal law opens two main avenues to 27 28 2 Hill v. Habeas is the “exclusive 1 remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “‘immediate or speedier release’” 2 from confinement. 3 (citation omitted); Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998); 4 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). 5 prisoner’s claim would not ‘necessarily spell speedier release,’ 6 however, suit may be brought under § 1983.’” Skinner, 131 S. Ct. at 7 1293 (citation omitted). 8 conditions have traditionally been cognizable only via § 1983, while 9 challenges implicating the fact or duration of confinement must be Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011) “Where the As a consequence, challenges to prison 10 brought through a habeas petition. 11 1026 (9th Cir. 2004). 12 Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024, A district court may construe a habeas petition by a 13 prisoner attacking the conditions of his confinement as a civil 14 rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 15 U.S. 249, 251 (1971), superceded by statute on other grounds as 16 recognized in Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006). 17 is not true, however: 18 relief should be dismissed without prejudice to bringing it as a 19 petition for writ of habeas corpus. 20 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). 21 Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 The opposite a civil rights complaint seeking habeas Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, In this case, Plaintiff's allegations attack the validity 22 of his conviction rather than the conditions of his confinement. 23 Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim under 24 section 1983. 25 without prejudice. 26 petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Accordingly, the instant complaint is DISMISSED Plaintiff may refile his case as a habeas 27 28 3 1 IV 2 Based on the foregoing, 3 (1) Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP is granted by 4 separate Order of the Court. 5 6 (2) The complaint is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling a habeas petition. 7 8 Docket #5. (3) The Clerk shall close the file, terminate all pending motions and enter judgment in accordance with this Order. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 13 DATED 02/13/2013 THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.12\Moreno 12-6400 Dis HC not CR.wpd 25 26 27 28 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?