Gore v. Napa State Hospital et al

Filing 4

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND TRANSFER; TERMINATING PENDING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/23/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

ANTHONY GORE,

4
5
6
7

Plaintiff,

9

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL
AND TRANSFER; TERMINATING
PENDING MOTIONS

v.
NAPA STATE HOSPITAL, ROBERT
HOREL, Warden,
Defendants.

8

No. C 12-2196 CW (PR)

/

Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at California State

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Prison - Sacramento in Represa (CSP-Sacramento), has filed this pro

11

se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages and

12

injunctive relief for alleged constitutional violations that

13

resulted in his criminal conviction.

14

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any

15

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

16

officer or employee of a governmental entity.

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

a defendant who is immune from such relief.

21

Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.

22

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.

23
24

Plaintiff alleges that in 2002 he was accused of killing his

25

roommate at Napa State Hospital, and that his rights under Miranda

26

v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), were violated when doctors at

27

the hospital allowed police detectives to question him for two

28

hours, even though he had been declared insane.

He seeks monetary

1

damages of $20,000 for pain and suffering, and to be returned to the

2

hospital because he still is insane.

3

he names Napa State Hospital and Robert Horel, the warden at CSP-

4

Sacramento.

5

Compl. at 2.

As Defendants,

In reviewing Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court takes judicial

6

notice of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus that Plaintiff

7

filed in this court in 2008.

8

The petition challenged the validity of Plaintiff’s 2005 conviction

9

for first-degree murder, which resulted from the incident described

See Gore v. Horel, C 08-4365 CW (PR).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

above.

11

merits, and, on January 11, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

12

dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

13

15, 20.

14

21.

On August 15, 2011, this Court denied the petition on the

The mandate was spread on February 14, 2012.

Docket nos.
Docket no.

15

In the present case, Plaintiff’s claim for damages is not

16

cognizable because the relief he seeks is barred by the holding of

17

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

18

addressing a claim for damages brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, held

19

that “in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional

20

conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions

21

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid” a

22

§ 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has

23

been invalidated previously.

24

In Heck, the Supreme Court,

Id. at 486-87.

Here, Plaintiff seeks damages for actions that allegedly

25

resulted in his unlawful conviction.

26

cause of action for damages has yet accrued, and any such claims

27

are barred until Plaintiff’s conviction has been invalidated.

28

Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 703 (9th Cir. 2006) (Heck barred
2

Under Heck, however, no

See

1

plaintiff’s claims of wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution and

2

conspiracy among police officers to bring false charges against

3

him); Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th

4

Cir. 1998) (Heck barred plaintiff’s false arrest and imprisonment

5

claims until conviction was invalidated); Smithart v. Towery, 79

6

F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir. 1996) (Heck barred plaintiff’s claims that

7

defendants lacked probable cause to arrest him and brought

8

unfounded criminal charges against him).

9

damages claim is DISMISSED without prejudice.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

Additionally, with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive

11

relief, i.e., that he be transferred from CSP-Sacramento to a

12

psychiatric hospital, the Northern District is not the proper venue

13

for this claim.

14

must be directed to Defendant Horel or other prison officials at

15

CSP-Sacramento.

16

County, venue is proper in the United States District Court for the

17

Eastern District of California, not in the Northern District.

18

28 U.S.C. § 84(b).

19

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Plaintiff’s transfer request

Because CSP-Sacramento is located in Sacramento

See

Accordingly, in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28

20

U.S.C. § 1406(a), this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States

21

District Court for the Eastern District of California.

22
23
24
25

The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions on
the Court’s docket, and transfer the case forthwith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/23/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
3