Bennett v. Santa Clara County Jail et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: this action is DISMISSED, in part without prejudice. Signed by Judge William H. Alsup on 7/25/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. C 13-3260 WHA (PR)

DAVID BENNETT,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
O. TRAN; KRISTEN CARTER,

14

Defendants.
/

15
16

INTRODUCTION

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

DISCUSSION

21

A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27
28

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

at 1974. Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901
F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

B.

LEGAL CLAIMS

16

Plaintiff is in jail awaiting trial on criminal charges in state court. He claims that the

17

prosecutor and his defense counsel are both acting incompetently, and that the trial court has

18

made errors, including improperly denying his motion to suppress evidence. He seeks

19

injunctive relief, such as a hearing in state court, trial dates, and bail. Under principles of

20

comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal

21

proceedings by granting injunctive absent extraordinary circumstances, of which none are

22

present here. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims

23

for injunctive relief will be dismissed. If he is convicted on the pending charges, he may of

24

course challenge the conviction or sentence in federal court in a petition for a writ of habeas

25

corpus, but only after he has fairly presented his claims to the California Supreme Court.

26

Plaintiff also seeks money damages on the above claims. The United States Supreme

27

Court has held that to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

28

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a
2

sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a

3

state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's

4

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). Heck

5

also bars claims, such as plaintiff’s, which necessarily implicate the validity of pending criminal

6

charges. See Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, plaintiff’s

7

claims for money damages base on alleged errors by trial counsel, the prosecutor or the trial

8

court will be dismissed without prejudice to refiling if he is acquitted of the charges against

9

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

10

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

11
For the Northern District of California

conviction or sentence invalid, a section 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or

2

United States District Court

1

after plaintiff has succeeded in the criminal realm).

12

Plaintiff also alleges that his defense counsel has sexually harassed by demanding sex

13

from him. While such allegations, if proven true, would not call into question to the validity of

14

his arrest or charges, they also do not state a cognizable claim under Section 1983. See

15

Rutledge v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 660 F.2d 1345, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981) (allegations of verbal

16

harassment and abuse fail to state a claim cognizable under Section 1983). These claims will be

17

dismissed.

18

CONCLUSION

19

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

20

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated: July

25

, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
3