Price v. McDonald

Filing 8

ORDER of Dismissal with Leave to Amend. Amended Complaint due by 4/15/2013. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 03/18/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2013)

1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
No. C-13-0103 TEH (PR)

LLOYD ALEXANDER PRICE,
9
Plaintiff,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

v.
11
12

SERGEANT MCDONALD, San Jose
Police Department Officer, #3274,

13

Defendant.

14

/

15
16

I

17

Plaintiff Lloyd Alexander Price, an inmate at the Santa

18

Clara County Jail in San Jose, California, filed this pro se civil

19

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendant San

20

Jose Police Sergeant McDonald violated his constitutional rights by

21

doctoring pictures, "adding stuff and all out lying," and then

22

charging him with a felony instead of a misdemeanor.1

23

also alleges a state law claim of defamation of character.

24

Plaintiff seeks dismissal of the "bogus charges" and money damages

25

for his pain and suffering.

Plaintiff

Plaintiff has also filed an application

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff originally filed this action in the Eastern District
of California, which transferred the case to this District pursuant
to the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

1

to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. ##2 and 5.

2

GRANTED in a separate order, filed simultaneously.2

3

is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and

4

the Court DISMISSES WITH LEAVE TO AMEND the complaint for the

5

reasons set forth below.

6

That motion is
The complaint

II

7

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of

8

cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or

9

officer or employee of a governmental entity.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint,

11

or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous,

12

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

13

granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

14

from such relief.”

15

litigants, however, must be liberally construed.

16

627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

17

Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

18

Id. § 1915A(b).

Pleadings filed by pro se
Hebbe v. Pliler,

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

19

allege two essential elements:

20

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that

21

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

22

color of state law.

(1) that a right secured by the

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

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff has also filed a letter requesting an extension of
time to file a civil action against West Sacramento Police Officers.
See Dkt. #6. This letter likely was filed in the wrong case; this
case addresses events that took place in San Jose, not Sacramento.
2

1

III

2

The complaint has a fatal defect requiring its dismissal.

3

The § 1983 claim for damages and dismissal of the charges is barred

4

by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

5

Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995).

6

See Trimble v. City of

Generally, Heck bars claims challenging the validity of an

7

arrest, prosecution or conviction.

8

697, 703 (9th Cir. 2006).

9

§ 1983 action for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

See Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d

Specifically, Heck bars a 42 U.S.C.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness

11

would render a conviction or sentence invalid unless the conviction

12

or sentence first has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by

13

executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to

14

make such determination, or called into question by a federal

15

court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

16

486–87.

17

district court must therefore consider whether a judgment in favor

18

of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his

19

conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed

20

unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence

21

has already been invalidated.

22

Heck, 512 U.S. at

When a prisoner seeks damages in a civil rights action, the

Id. at 487.

The rationale of Heck applies only if there is an existing

23

conviction.

24

contention that “an action which would impugn an anticipated future

25

conviction cannot be brought until that conviction occurs and is set

26

aside” goes “well beyond Heck.”

27

Nonetheless, if a plaintiff files a § 1983 claim “related to rulings

28

Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007).

The

Id. at 393 (emphasis in original).

3

1

that will likely be made in a pending or anticipated criminal

2

trial[], it is . . . in accord with common practice, to stay the

3

civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal

4

case is ended.”

5

Id. at 393-94.

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that improper charges
have been filed against him, but he does not allege that he has been

7

convicted pursuant to these charges.

8

convicted, a decision in this case in his favor would imply the

9

invalidity of that conviction because the alleged wrongful conduct

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

of Sgt. McDonald caused him to be adjudicated for charges that he

11

contends are false.

12

(which would be necessary for Plaintiff to prevail), the conviction

13

necessarily would be invalidated.

14

convicted, this case would be dismissed.

15

549 U.S. at 393-94, if Plaintiff has not yet been convicted on the

16

basis of the alleged wrongful charges, this case would be stayed

17

until his criminal case is ended.

18

If Plaintiff has been

If the charges are determined to be false

Thus, if Plaintiff has been
However, under Wallace,

Therefore, this case will be dismissed with leave to amend

19

for Plaintiff to allege in an amended complaint if he has been

20

convicted or if his criminal case is still pending.

21

IV

22

Plaintiff also alleges a state law claim of defamation.

23

Because the § 1983 claim will be dismissed or stayed, the court

24

declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the defamation

25

claim.

26

dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing it in state court.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

27
28

4

The defamation claim is

1

V

2

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint is

3

DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Sgt.

4

McDonald to add the allegations that the Court has noted above.

5

pleading must include the caption and civil case number used in this

6

order and the words COURT ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the

7

first page.

8

twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order will result in the

9

dismissal of this action.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The

Failure to file a proper First Amended Complaint within

Plaintiff is advised that the First Amended Complaint will

11

supersede the original Complaint.

12

allegations from his original complaint in his First Amended

13

Complaint.

14
15

Therefore, he must include the

See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) .
The defamation claim is dismissed without prejudice to

filing in state court.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20

DATED

03/18/2013
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.13\Price 13-0103-heck dismissal.wpd

5