Turner v. Vaughn et al

Filing 5

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 4/3/14. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2014)

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.
)
)
)
CHERYL A. VAUGHN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
__________________________________ )

No. C 14-0402 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 a judge of the Contra Costa County Superior

19

Court, the Contra Costa County Public Defender, police officers, and other public

20

officials involved in his criminal prosecution. For the reasons discussed below, the

21

complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The application to proceed in forma pauperis

22

is granted in a separate order.

23
24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

699 (9th Cir. 1990).

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13
14

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conspired together to have him wrongly arrested,

15

prosecuted, and incarcerated on the basis of a criminal conviction. He seeks money

16

damages.

17

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

18

allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, a section 1983 plaintiff must

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

section 1983. Id. It is clear from the complaint that his conviction and consequent

25

confinement have not been invalidated. It is equally clear that his claims for false arrest

26

and incarceration would, if proven, necessarily imply the invalidity of his confinement.

27

See id. Therefore, he fails to state a cognizable claim for damages under Section 1983,

28

and such claims must be dismissed without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa,

1

49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (claims barred by Heck may be dismissed sua sponte

2

without prejudice).

3

CONCLUSION

4

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

5

The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED: April 3, 2014

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
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
EDWARD LEE TURNER,

Case Number: CV14-00402 JSW

7
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

8
v.

9
CHERYL VAUGHN ET AL 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 3, 2014, 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
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Edward Lee Turner
V25872
P.O. Box 799002
San Diego, CA 92771
Dated: April 3, 2014
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk