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)

Download PDF
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

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?