Turner-Gonzalez v. Richardson et al

Filing 10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 4/15/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14

EDWARD L. TURNER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
PAUL RICHARDSON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
__________________________________ )

No. C 13-0910 JSW (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

15
16
17

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, a former parolee of the State of California, filed this pro se civil rights

18

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against judge of the Yolo County Superior Court. For

19

the reasons discussed below, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The

20

application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order.

21
22

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement

23

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not

24

necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim

25

is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200

26

(2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need

27

detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his

28

'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic

1

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must

2

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

3

Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer

4

"enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974. Pro se

5

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696,

6

699 (9th Cir. 1990).

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11
12

LEGAL CLAIMS
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his rights to due process, equal

13

protection, and “all constitutional bill of human rights” by denying his motion to suppress

14

evidence and making other adverse rulings that led to his conviction and “false

15

imprisonment.” He seeks money damages and immediate release from prison.

16

The United States Supreme Court has held that to recover damages for an

17

allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, a section 1983 plaintiff must

18

prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by

19

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

20

determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas

21

corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). A claim for damages arising

22

from a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under

23

section 1983. Id.

24

Plaintiff seeks money damages for actions by Defendants that led to his

25

confinement in prison. When a state prisoner seeks damages in a section 1983 suit, the

26

district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily

27

imply the invalidity of his confinement; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed

28

unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been

1

invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. It is clear from the complaint that his conviction and

2

consequent confinement have not been invalidated. Therefore, he fails to state a

3

cognizable claim for damages under Section 1983, and such claims must be dismissed

4

without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995)

5

(claims barred by Heck may be dismissed sua sponte without prejudice).

6

Plaintiff’s claims for release from prison, if he wants to pursue such claims in

7

federal court, must be brought in a federal habeas petition, not a civil rights complaint,

8

after he has properly exhausted his claims in the state courts. Such claims are dismissed

9

without prejudice to his doing so.

10

CONCLUSION

11

For the reasons set out above, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

12

The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED: April 15, 2013

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
ANTHONY RECARDO G TURNER,

Case Number: CV13-00910 JSW

Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
8
v.

9
PAUL RICHARDSON et al,

10
Defendant.

11
12
13
14
15

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on April 15, 2013, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17

20

Anthony Recardo Turner-Gonzalez
Salinas Valley State Prison
P.O. Box 1051
#G27511
Soledad, CA 93960

21

Dated: April 15, 2013

18
19

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk