Hawes v. Brown et al
Filing
5
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/19/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2017)
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
TERRY RAY HAWES,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
Case No. 17-cv-05166-WHO (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
E. G. BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
For the second time this year, plaintiff Terry Hawes has filed a federal civil rights
18
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he alleges that his 2009 state convictions for rape
19
and other crimes are invalid and that in consequence he is owed money damages by the
20
Governor of the State of California and the state superior court judge who presided over
21
his criminal trial.
22
His prior action (Hawes v. Brown, No. 3:17-cv-02400-WHO) was dismissed
23
because his claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As was made
24
clear in the prior dismissal order, Heck bars section 1983 actions for damages for an
25
allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions
26
whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid. Id. at 486-487. The
27
Heck bar can be avoided if a plaintiff can prove that the conviction or sentence has been
28
reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal
1
authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s
2
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Id.
3
4
In this instant action, Hawes has made no showing, nor even alleged, that Heck does
not bar his case. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
5
As was stated in the prior dismissal order, Hawes may refile his suit if he can show
6
that his conviction has been invalidated in one of the ways specified in Heck. If he refiles,
7
he should be aware of the following. His claims for damages against the trial court judge
8
will never be sustainable. A state judge is absolutely immune from civil liability for
9
damages for acts performed in his judicial capacity. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547,
553-55 (1967); Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001). Presiding
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
over Hawes’s trial and imposing sentence are without doubt acts performed in the judge’s
12
judicial capacity.
CONCLUSION
13
14
This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in
15
favor of defendants, and close the file.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
Dated: September 19, 2017
_________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?