Hawes v. Krause et al

Filing 5

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 10/30/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

TERRY RAY HAWES,

7

Plaintiff,

8

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

9
10

PETER KRAUSE, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-05968-WHO (PR)

Defendants.

12

For the fifth time this year, plaintiff Terry Hawes seeks relief for injuries allegedly

13
14

caused by his 2009 state convictions for rape and other crimes. In two of the civil rights

15

actions, he attempted to sue the governor (whose connection to Hawes’s convictions

16

plaintiff never established) and the trial judge who presided over his criminal trial (who is

17

absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for acts performed in a judicial

18

capacity).1 The third was dismissed because Hawes failed to pay the filing fee or submit a

19

complete application to proceed in forma pauperis.2 The fourth, which named the district

20

and assistant district attorneys, was dismissed because it, like the present action, was

21

barred by Heck.3 In the fifth and present action, Hawes sues the state governor and his

22

legal affairs secretary for failing to free him even after he gave them evidence that his trial

23

was unfair.

24
25
26

1

Hawes v. Brown, 17-cv-02400-WHO; and Hawes v. Brown, 17-cv-05166-WHO.

27

2

Hawes v. State of California, 17-cv-01168-WHO.

28

3

Hawes v. Berberian, 17-cv-05566-WHO.

As with the prior actions, the current 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit is barred by Heck v.

1
2

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As was made clear in the prior dismissal orders, Heck

3

bars section 1983 actions for damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

4

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a

5

conviction or sentence invalid. Id. at 486-487. When a state prisoner seeks damages in a

6

section 1983 suit, the district court must therefore consider whether a judgment in favor of

7

the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it

8

would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the

9

conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Id. at 487. The Heck bar applies here
because a judgment that defendants failed to free him would necessarily imply the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

invalidity of his convictions and sentence.
The Heck bar can be avoided if a plaintiff can prove that the conviction or sentence

12
13

has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a

14

state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal

15

court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Id.

16

Hawes has made no showing that Heck does not bar his case.

17

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Hawes may refile his

18

suit if he can show that his conviction has been invalidated in one of the ways specified in

19

Heck.

20
21
22
23
24

CONCLUSION
This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall
enter judgment in favor of defendants, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 30, 2017
_________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2