Alford v. Pacifica Police Department

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING IN PART, STAYING, AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 4/27/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
AARON ROBERT ALFORD,

7

Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

PACIFICA POLICE DEPARTMENT,

10

ORDER DISMISSING IN PART,
STAYING, AND ADMINISTRATIVELY
CLOSING CASE

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.17-cv-00524-JSC

12
INTRODUCTION

13

Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee in San Mateo County, filed this pro se civil rights complaint

14
15

under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 against the Pacifica Police Department.1 Plaintiff’s application to proceed

16

in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons explained below, the complaint is

17

dismissed with leave to amend.
STANDARD OF REVIEW

18

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

19
20

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

21

1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of

22

the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief

23

may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.

24

§ 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901

25

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

26
27
1

28

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(c). (Dkt. 7.)

1

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the

2

statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon

3

which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to

4

state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to

5

provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a

6

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must

7

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

8

127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to

9

state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a
right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged
violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
42, 48 (1988).
LEGAL CLAIMS

14
15
16
17

Plaintiff complains that his arrest, current incarceration, and prosecution are unlawful. He
seeks to have all the charges pending against him dismissed, and he claims that he is entitled to
money damages. As to the dismissal of his charges, a writ of habeas corpus is the “exclusive
remedy” for an inmate who seeks “immediate or speedier release” from confinement. Skinner v.

18
Switzer, 561 U.S. 521, 525 (2011). A civil rights complaint seeking habeas relief should be
19
dismissed without prejudice to bringing it as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Trimble v. City
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim seeking to dismiss
his criminal charges must be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus.
Because Plaintiff’s claims would --- if proven true --- invalidate his currently pending
charges, his claims for money damages are stayed until his criminal prosecution ends. See
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007). If Plaintiff is convicted, his claims for money
damages will be dismissed; if he is not convicted, his claims for money damages may proceed at
that time. See id. at 394.

28
2

1
CONCLUSION

2
3

The complaint is DISMISSED IN PART. The claims seeking dismissal of the charges

4

against Plaintiff are DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in a petition for a writ of habeas

5

corpus filed in a new case. The case is otherwise STAYED pending resolution of Plaintiff’s

6

criminal proceedings. If Plaintiff wants to proceed with his remaining claims, i.e. his claims for

7

money damages, he must file a motion to lift the stay within 28 days of the date his criminal

8

proceedings are resolved in state court.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The Clerk shall administratively close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 27, 2017

12
13
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

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