Bonilla v. Superior Court of Alameda County

Filing 12

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken in case 4:11-cv-06306-CW; denying (4) Motion to Dismiss as moot; denying as moot (10) Motion to Dismiss in case 4:12-cv-00140-CW (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (cwlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7

No. C 12-0140 CW (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL;
DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
AS MOOT

v.
ALAMEDA COUNTY,

(Docket nos. 4 & 10)

Defendant.

8

/

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State

12

Prison, filed the present civil action in Alameda County Superior

13

Court.

14

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, and has filed a motion to dismiss the

15

complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

16

Procedure.

17

Defendant Alameda County removed the action to this court

For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is dismissed

18

for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief and the motion

19

to dismiss is denied as moot.

20

STANDARD OF REVIEW

21

Because this action was filed by a prisoner seeing redress

22

from a governmental entity, the Court must engage in a preliminary

23

screening of the complaint to determine whether the allegations

24

state cognizable claims for relief.

25

review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss

26

any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon

27

which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant

28

who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

In its

Pro se

1

pleadings must be liberally construed.

2

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

3
4

Balistreri v. Pacifica

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges the violation of his federal constitutional

5

rights by Alameda County for his alleged false arrest, false

6

imprisonment, malicious prosecution and conviction.

7

release from custody and monetary damages.

8

Plaintiff’s claims are not cognizable.

He seeks

As the Court has

explained previously to Plaintiff in several orders, any claim that

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

he is entitled to “immediate or speedier release” from confinement

11

may be asserted only in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

12

See Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011)(citation and

13

quotation omitted).

14

from having the Court consider any pro se habeas challenge to his

15

conviction, because the Court has exercised its discretion in

16

Plaintiff’s pending federal habeas action to deny his request to

17

represent himself, and has stayed all further proceedings until

18

counsel is appointed or until the Court otherwise lifts the stay.

19

See Bonilla v. Ayers, C 08-0471 CW, Docket nos. 118, 122.

20

At this time, however, Plaintiff is precluded

Additionally, under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87

21

(1994), Plaintiff’s claims for damages have not yet accrued, and

22

any such claims are barred until his conviction has been

23

invalidated.

24

2006) (Heck bars claims of wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution

25

and conspiracy to bring false charges); Cabrera v. City of

26

Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998) (Heck bars

27

claims of false arrest and imprisonment until conviction is

28

invalidated); Smithart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir. 1996)

See Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 703 (9th Cir.

2

1
2

(Heck bars claims of unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution).
Based on the above, Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED under 28

3

U.S.C. § 1915A because they fail to state a claim upon which relief

4

may be granted.

5

claims for release being presented in his pending federal habeas

6

petition once counsel has been appointed and/or the stay on further

7

proceedings has been lifted, and to Plaintiff’s reasserting his

8

claims for damages in a new action once a cause of action has

9

accrued.

The dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

CONCLUSION

11

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

12

1.

The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

13

2.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot.

14

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the

15

files.

16

This Order terminates Docket nos. 4 and 10.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: July 6, 2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3