Burnett v. McNulty et al
Filing
8
ORDER OF DISMISSAL - Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 07/20/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2017)
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
CARLOS ROMERO BURNETT,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
Case No. 17-cv-02998-WHO (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
ANGELA MCNULTY, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Carlos Romero Burnett alleges in this federal civil rights action that his
19
state conviction is invalid and that in consequence he is owed money damages by the
20
prosecutors and his appellate attorney. The United States Supreme Court in Heck v.
21
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994) barred claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
22
that, if successful, would appear to invalidate a conviction or sentence that has not already
23
been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
24
tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s
25
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Burnett’s case appears to do what Heck precludes.
26
Accordingly, this suit is DISMISSED.
27
28
1
BACKGROUND
In 2015, a Monterey County Superior Court jury convicted Burnett of possessing a
2
3
weapon in a penal institution. People v. Burnett, No. H042861, 2017 WL 25499 at *1
4
(Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2017). He was sentenced to 25 years to life in state prison, a
5
sentence to be served consecutively to the sentences for first degree murder and attempted
6
murder he was already serving. Id. In 2017, the state appellate court affirmed the
7
conviction. Id.
It is his 2015 conviction and sentence that Burnett contends are invalid.
8
9
10
DISCUSSION
A.
Standard of Review
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
In its initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must dismiss any claim that
12
is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks
13
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.
14
§ 1915(e). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
15
Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
16
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
17
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
18
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial
19
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
20
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting
21
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal
22
conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably
23
be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55
24
(9th Cir. 1994).
25
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
26
elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
27
violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the
28
color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
2
1
2
B.
Legal Claims
In order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
3
imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a
4
conviction or sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction
5
or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared
6
invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question
7
by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-487. A
8
claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so
9
invalidated is not cognizable under section 1983. Id. at 487.
10
Where, as in this case, a state prisoner seeks damages in a section 1983 suit, the
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily
12
imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be
13
dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has been
14
invalidated. Id. at 487.
15
A judgment that defendants violated Burnett’s constitutional rights in connection
16
with his trial and sentence would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or
17
sentence. Because it is not clear from the complaint that his conviction has been
18
invalidated, this section 1983 suit is barred by Heck. Accordingly, the action will be
19
dismissed. Burnett may refile his suit if he can show that his conviction has been
20
invalidated in one of the ways specified in Heck.
21
22
CONCLUSION
This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in
23
favor of defendants, and close the file.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated: July 20, 2017
_________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?