Hawes v. Simmons et al

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 6/1/15. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2015)

1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3
4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7

TERRY HAWES,
Plaintiff,

8

KELLY SIMMONS; JERRY
BROWN,

11
Defendants.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

9
10

No. C 15-1580 WHA (PR)

12

/

13
INTRODUCTION
14
This is a pro se civil rights complaint filed by a California prisoner proceeding pro se
15
under 42 U.S.C. 1983. He claims that the judge in his criminal trial violated his constitutional
16
rights. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
17
DISCUSSION
18
A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

19
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
20
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
21
1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims
22
which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek
23
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2).
24
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the
25
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the
26
statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds
27
upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).
28

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

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

11
For the Northern District of California

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

10

United States District Court

9

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

12

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

13

B.

14

LEGAL CLAIMS
Plaintiff claims that defendant Simmons, the judge at his criminal trial, violated his right

15

to due process by finding him incompetent but later granting his request to proceed with his

16

criminal proceedings pro se. He wants the judge and the Governor of California to pay him 25

17

million dollars.

18

Plaintiff’s claims are barred. The United States Supreme Court has held that to recover

19

damages for an allegedly unconstitutional confinement, or for other harm caused by actions

20

whose unlawfulness would render the confinement invalid, a plaintiff must prove that the

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

Plaintiff’s success on his claims that the trial judge violated his right to due process in the

25

course of his criminal trial would necessarily imply the invalidity of his resulting conviction,

26

sentence and present commitment. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims are dismissed without

27

prejudice until and unless his conviction is overturned or otherwise called into question. See

28

generally Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 107 F.3d 696, 700-01 (9th Cir. 1997).
2

1

CONCLUSION

2

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

3

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
Dated: June
6

1

, 2015.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3