Davis v. Suhr et al

Filing 39

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge James Donato on 10/16/19. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOHN L. DAVIS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 35, 36, 37
GREG SUHR, et al.,
Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.16-cv-04487-JD

12
13

Plaintiff, a prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This

14

action was stayed pending the outcome of plaintiff’s criminal proceeding. The stay was lifted, and

15

the second amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff has submitted a

16

filing (Docket No. 33) that the Court construes as a third amended complaint. Plaintiff has also

17

filed several motions for injunctive relief.
DISCUSSION

18
19

STANDARD OF REVIEW

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

26

Cir. 1990).

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.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed

1

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to

2

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

3

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above

4

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations

5

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

6

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face”

7

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they

8

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court

9

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by

12

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was

13

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

14

LEGAL CLAIMS

15

Plaintiff alleges that he was the victim of a false arrest due to a conspiracy of local and

16

federal law enforcement. He seeks money damages. In order to recover damages for an allegedly

17

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

18

unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must

19

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

20

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

21

question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

22

477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence

23

that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487.
A claim of unlawful arrest is cognizable under § 1983 for violation of the Fourth
Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure if the allegation is that the arrest
was without probable cause or other justification. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 555-558
(1967); Yousefian v. City of Glendale, 779 F.3d 1010, 1014, n.1. (9th Cir. 2015) (absence of
probable cause is essential element of § 1983 false arrest claim); see, e.g., Fortson v. Los Angles
City Atty’s Office, 852 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2017) (existence of probable cause is complete
defense to § 1983 claim alleging false arrest). A claim of bad faith in making an arrest may also
be a cause of action under § 1983 as an illegal and unconstitutional arrest. See Bretz v. Kelman,
773 F.2d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). Where officers have no lawful basis for stopping
an individual, they have no lawful basis for pursuing an arrest for resisting, impeding, or

24
25
26
27
28

2

1
2

obstructing a peace officer when that individual does not accede to the investigatory stop.
Velazquez v. City of Long Beach, 793 F.3d 1010, 1019 (9th Cir. 2015).
Plaintiff states that various San Francisco Police Officers and federal officials conspired to

3

have him arrested and they were trying to kill him. However, in the prior screening order the

4

Court noted that plaintiff pled no contest to criminal charges related to the domestic violence

5

allegations, therefore his request to obtain damages was barred by Heck, unless the conviction was

6

later reversed or overturned. To the extent plaintiff sought relief regarding a conspiracy to

7

investigate and arrest him that would not be barred by Heck, he had failed to state a claim for

8

relief. He was informed that simply stating that the local and federal officials were conspiring

9

against him was insufficient. Plaintiff has filed a third amended complaint but has failed to cure

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

the deficiencies noted by the Court.
Plaintiff has not addressed Heck and why this action for damages should continue even

12

though he pled no contest. Because his claims are barred by Heck, this case is dismissed. To the

13

extent plaintiff presents claims that are not Heck barred, he has failed to state a cognizable claim.

14

Plaintiff presents general claims of a conspiracy and false arrest, but his allegations are not

15

plausible on their face. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. This action is dismissed without leave to

16

amend because plaintiff has already been provided multiple opportunities to amend and allowing

17

further amendment would be futile.

18

Plaintiff has also filed motions for injunctive relief related to the conditions of his

19

confinement, but these claims are not related to the content of the underlying complaint. The

20

motions for injunctive relief are denied. If plaintiff seeks relief regarding the conditions of his

21

confinement, he may file a separate civil rights actions containing those allegations.

22
CONCLUSION

23
24
25
26

1.

This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim and as Heck barred. If

plaintiff’s conviction is reversed or expunged, he may file a new case.
2.

The motions for injunctive relief (Docket Nos. 35, 36, 37) are DENIED. The

27

Clerk shall send plaintiff a blank civil rights form and an IFP application. If plaintiff seeks relief

28

regarding the conditions of his confinement, he may file a new case.
3

1

3.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

The Clerk will close this case.

Dated: October 16, 2019

4
5
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

JOHN L. DAVIS,

Case No. 16-cv-04487-JD

Plaintiff,
6
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
8

GREG SUHR, et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

12
13
14
15
16

That on October 16, 2019, 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.

17
18
19
20

John L. Davis ID: 16664426
Attn: Nicholas Gregoratos
San Francisco Sheriff's Department
425 7th Street Mailroom
San Francisco, CA 94103

21
22

Dated: October 16, 2019

23
24
25

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

26
27
28

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO
5