Bennett v. U.S. Government et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 6/29/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
DAVID BENNETT,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

No. C 13-2175 WHA (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
ANDREW DUNN; SERGEANT
MACFARLANE; UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT; AGENT MENDEZ,

15

Defendant.
/

16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

This is a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 filed by a pretrial detainee at

19

the Santa Clara County Jail. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a

20

separate order. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

21

DISCUSSION

22

A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

23

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

24

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

25

1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

26

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

27

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2).

28

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

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

3

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).

4

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

5

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than

6

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

7

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

8

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

9

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

10

at 1974. Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901

11
For the Northern District of California

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

2

United States District Court

1

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

12

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

13

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2)

14

that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

15

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

16

B.

LEGAL CLAIMS

17

Plaintiff claims that he was arrested without probable cause, in violation of his Fourth

18

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

19

allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions

20

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a section 1983 plaintiff must

21

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

22

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

23

question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct.

24

2364, 2372 (1994).

25

Heck applies to claims, such as plaintiff’s, for false arrest where the charges are pending.

26

See Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 37, 380 (9th Cir. 1998) (Heck barred

27

plaintiff's false arrest and imprisonment claims until conviction was invalidated); Smithart v.

28

Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir. 1996) (Heck barred plaintiff's claims that defendants lacked
2

1
2

probable cause to arrest him and brought unfounded criminal charges against him).
Therefore, this complaint fails to state a cognizable claim under section 1983 and must

3

be dismissed without prejudice to refiling if he is acquitted of the charges against him, if the

4

charges are dismissed, or the charges are otherwise invalidated. See Alvarez-Machain v. United

5

States, 107 F.3d 696, 700-01 (9th Cir. 1997) (civil claims barred by Heck do not accrue until

6

after plaintiff has succeeded in the criminal realm).

7

CONCLUSION

8

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

9

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Dated: June

29

, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3