Ludtke v. Borg

Filing 7

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. The action is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 10/12/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

AARON A. LUDTKE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-05386-WHO (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

EDWARD BORG,
Defendant.

16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

Plaintiff Aaron A. Ludtke filed this civil rights action against the Lake County

19

assistant district attorney, Edward Borg, who successfully prosecuted him. The United

20

States Supreme Court in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994) barred claims

21

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that, if successful, would appear to invalidate a conviction

22

or sentence that has not already been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive

23

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

24

into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Ludtke’s case

25

appears to do what Heck v Humphrey precludes. Accordingly, his suit is DISMISSED

26

without prejudice.

27
28

1
2

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review

3

In its initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must dismiss any claim that

4

is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks

5

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.

6

§ 1915(e). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

7

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

8

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

10

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

12

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

13

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal

14

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably

15

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55

16

(9th Cir. 1994).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

17
18

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

19

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

20

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

21

B.

Legal Claims
Ludtke, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this section 1983 suit against

22
23

Lake County prosecutor Borg for successfully prosecuting him for willfully failing to

24

update his registration as a sex offender.1 In order to recover damages for an allegedly

25

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

26

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

27
28

1

People v. Ludtke, No. A144485, 2016 WL 2658141 (Cal. Ct. App. May 6, 2016).
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages bearing

5

that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not

6

cognizable under section 1983. Id. at 487.

7

Where, as in this case, a state prisoner seeks damages in a section 1983 suit, the

8

district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily

9

imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be
dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has been

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

invalidated. Id. at 487. Here, a judgment that defendant, while acting as prosecutor,

12

violated Ludtke’s constitutional rights would necessarily imply the invalidity of his

13

conviction or sentence.

14

Because it is not clear from the complaint that Ludtke’s convictions have been

15

invalidated, this section 1983 suit is barred by Heck. Accordingly, the action is

16

DISMISSED without prejudice to Ludtke refiling such claims when he can make such a

17

showing.

18
19

If Ludtke wishes to challenge the constitutional validity of his state conviction(s),
he should exhaust his state judicial remedies before filing for federal relief.

20
21
22
23
24

CONCLUSION
This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall
enter judgment in favor of defendant, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 12, 2016
_________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
3