VanBladel v. Sonoma County District Attorney et al

Filing 8

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 1/5/2016. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8

RODEO RONALD VAN BLADEL,
Plaintiff,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

10
11

No. C 15-4407 MEJ (PR)

SONOMA COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, et al.,
Defendants.

12

/

13

INTRODUCTION

14

Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”), has filed

15
16

a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages and injunctive

17

relief for alleged constitutional violations that resulted in his criminal conviction in Sonoma

18

County Superior Court. Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which is

19

granted in a separate order.
DISCUSSION

20
21
22

I.

Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

23

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28

24

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

25

any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

26

granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id.

27

§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica

28

Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

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

1
2

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

3

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color

4

of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

5

II.

6

Plaintiff’s Claims
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Office of the Sonoma County District Attorney

7

violated his constitutional rights by engaging in various forms of prosecutorial misconduct

8

relating to his state court criminal proceedings, including failing to disclose exculpatory

9

evidence and failing to disclose promises made to prosecution witnesses in return for their

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

testimony. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department engaged in

11

various forms of improper investigation including failure to preserve evidence. Plaintiff

12

alleges that defendant Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Gayle Guynup engaged in

13

judicial misconduct by failing to recuse herself from plaintiff’s case. Finally, plaintiff alleges

14

that his court-appointed defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance throughout his

15

criminal proceedings.

16

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). The

17

United States Supreme Court has held that to recover damages in a suit under § 1983 for an

18

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

19

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a plaintiff must prove that

20

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

21

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

22

question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Id. A claim for damages

23

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

24

§ 1983. Id.

25

If plaintiff’s claims that defendants violated his constitutional rights during state

26

criminal proceedings are proven true, this would imply the invalidity of his conviction.

27

Because plaintiff is presently an inmate at SQSP, it is clear the conviction has yet to be

28

invalidated. Until then, the claims are barred by Heck.
2

1

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the exclusive method by which a person may

2

challenge in this court the fact or duration of his confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411

3

U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Before he may file a federal petition, however, plaintiff must exhaust

4

state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by

5

presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of

6

each and every issue he seeks to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A),(c);

7

Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981).

8

CONCLUSION

9

For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED. This dismissal is without

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

prejudice to plaintiff filing a new action if his criminal conviction is set aside. The Clerk

11

shall enter judgment and close the file.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

DATED:

January 5, 2016

15

Maria-Elena James
United States Magistrate Judge

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