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)
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?