Cheza v. Symons et al

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 7/3/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9

KYLE ROBERT CHEZA,

Case No. 14-cv-2078 VC (PR)

Plaintiff,
10
v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

JUDGE ARIADNE J. SYMONS, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
Kyle Robert Cheza, a California state prisoner incarcerated at Mercer County Prison,

15
16

located in Mercer, Pennsylvania, filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

17

against officials employed by the County of Santa Cruz, California. On May 29, 2014, the Court

18

issued an Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend. In the Order, the Court reviewed Cheza’s

19

complaint and found that his claims would imply that his conviction or sentence was invalid and,

20

because Cheza did not allege that his conviction or sentence has been determined to be wrongful,

21

his claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The Court allowed Cheza to

22

file an amended complaint alleging or showing that his conviction and sentence had been

23

invalidated. The Court allowed Cheza twenty-one days from the date of the Order to file an

24

amended complaint remedying the noted deficiencies and informed him that, if he did not file an

25

amended complaint within twenty-one days, his complaint would be dismissed without leave to

26

amend.

27
28

On June 18, 2014, Cheza filed an amended complaint. However, the complaint does not
allege or show that his conviction or sentence has been invalidated. The only additional

1

information Cheza submits with his amended complaint are copies of pages from Federal Practice

2

and Procedure by Charles Wright and Arthur Miller pertaining to judicial immunity from damages

3

in civil rights cases. In its Order of Dismissal, the Court did not address the issue of immunity.

4

This additional information on immunity does not remedy the deficiency noted by the Court in the

5

May 29, 2014 Order of Dismissal. 1
Because Cheza’s amended complaint does not indicate his conviction or sentence has been

6
7

invalidated, his complaint is barred by Heck v. Humphrey and must be dismissed. Dismissal is

8

without prejudice to filing a paid complaint.
The Clerk shall enter a separate judgment and close the file.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: July 3, 2014
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

On June 18, 2014, Cheza’s mother submitted a letter to the Court explaining that, pursuant to
Cheza’s May 2012 conviction and sentence in the Santa Cruz County Superior Court, Cheza
believed he had been placed on probation, to be served in Ohio. Cheza’s mother related that an
Ohio police officer searched for Cheza’s probation records in California and Ohio and told Cheza
that he was not listed as being on probation. However, when Cheza called the Santa Cruz
probation office about returning to California, he was told that he could not return for a period of
one year. This information does not show that Cheza’s conviction and sentence were invalidated.
2