Smith v. Public Defenders Office et al

Filing 10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/11/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

ANTHONY X. SMITH,

4
5
6

Plaintiff,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, et al.,

7

Defendants.

8
9

No. C 11-5796 CW (PR)

/

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California, has filed

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

11

been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

12

that the attorneys who represented him in his criminal proceedings

13

in 1986 did not provide him with the effective assistance of

14

counsel.

He has

Plaintiff alleges

He seeks monetary damages.

15

STANDARD OF REVIEW

16

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any

17

case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or

18

officer or employee of a governmental entity.

19

In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

20

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a

21

claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from

22

a defendant who is immune from such relief.

23

Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.

24

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
Balistreri v.

25

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must

26

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the

27

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and

28

1

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting

2

under the color of State law.

3

(1988).

4
5

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for alleged inadequate

6

representation by his criminal defense attorneys.

7

allegations do not state a claim upon which relief may be granted

8

because he cannot pursue any claim for damages or injunctive relief

9

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that, if successful, necessarily would call

Plaintiff's

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

into question the validity of his conviction or confinement.

11

v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), holds that in order to state a

12

claim for relief for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

13

term of imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose

14

unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a

15

plaintiff asserting a violation of § 1983 must prove that the

16

conviction or sentence has been reversed or declared invalid.

17

at 486-87.

18

demonstrate the invalidity of the confinement or its duration, the

19

§ 1983 lawsuit is barred, irrespective of whether the plaintiff

20

seeks monetary damages or equitable relief.

21

544 U.S. 74, 81 (2005).

22

Heck

Id.

If success in the § 1983 lawsuit would necessarily

Wilkinson v. Dotson,

Here, Plaintiff's complaint seeks damages from the attorneys

23

who allegedly failed to provide him with adequate representation in

24

his criminal proceedings.

25

would call into question the validity of Plaintiff's conviction.

Such claims, if successful, necessarily

26
27
28
2

1

Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend.

2

See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487.1

3
4

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED without

5

leave to amend and without prejudice for failure to state a claim

6

upon which relief may be granted.

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The Clerk of the Court shall close the file and enter
judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 4/11/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1

25
26
27
28

After he filed the present complaint, Plaintiff filed a
sixteen-page document titled "Notice and Memorandum." Docket no.
7. The contents of the document are difficult to decipher and
Plaintiff's intent in filing it is not clear. To the extent he
intended the document to supplement his ineffective assistance of
counsel claim, it fails to revive that barred claim. To the extent
he intended to raise claims concerning other matters, he must file
a new and separate complaint raising those claims.
3