Clemons v. Anderson et al
Filing
13
ORDER of DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 4/5/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
JOHN LEROY CLEMONS,
Plaintiff,
9
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
10
11
Case No. 16-cv-07006-HSG (PR)
DON ANDERSON, et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
14
INTRODUCTION
15
On December 7, 2016, plaintiff, formerly an inmate at a correctional facility in California,
16
filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages for alleged
17
constitutional violations that resulted in his criminal conviction. His complaint is now before the
18
court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 because he has applied to proceed in forma pauperis.
DISCUSSION
19
20
21
A.
Standard of Review
The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis action at any time if the Court determines
22
that the allegation of poverty is untrue, the action is frivolous or malicious, the action fails to state
23
a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant immune
24
from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See
25
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
26
The complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
27
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement
28
need only . . . give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
1
rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks
2
omitted). Although a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s
3
obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and
4
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual
5
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic
6
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer
7
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. Pro se complaints
8
must be liberally construed. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements:
9
(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v.
12
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
13
B.
14
Legal Claims
In his complaint, plaintiff alleges various problems in connection with a criminal case
15
against him that led to his conviction and sentence in or about 2015. He alleges, for example, that
16
the Lake County Sheriff’s Department and Clearlake Police Department violated his constitutional
17
rights by obtaining an illegal warrant against him and conducting an illegal search and seizure. He
18
also alleges that the Lake County District Attorney’s Office conspired to have plaintiff wrongly
19
convicted and made false statements in order to have plaintiff’s bail increased.
20
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). The
21
United States Supreme Court has held that to recover damages in a suit under § 1983 for an
22
allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose
23
unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a plaintiff must prove that the
24
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared
25
invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a
26
federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Id. A claim for damages arising from a
27
conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Id. Here,
28
plaintiff’s request for damages under § 1983 for defendants’ allegedly unlawful actions in securing
2
1
his state conviction is barred by Heck because a judgment in favor of plaintiff would necessarily
2
imply the invalidity of a state conviction that has not already been invalidated.
3
It is not clear that success on the excessive bail claim would call into question the
4
validity of the conviction, but even if that claim is not barred by the Heck doctrine, the prosecutors
5
have absolute immunity against a claim for damages because the excessive bail claim was based
6
on their conduct as advocates in the criminal case. See Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259,
7
272-73 (1993); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976). Similarly, to the extent
8
plaintiff brings claims against the state court judge who issued the warrant in his case, a state
9
judge is absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for acts performed in his judicial
capacity. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55 (1967) (applying judicial immunity to actions
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). “[J]udicial immunity is an immunity from suit for damages, not just
12
from ultimate assessment of damages.” See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991).
13
Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief, requesting “the corruption of Lake County to cease,”
14
“the intimidation to stop,” and “removal from public positions of power.” Compl. at 4. Even if
15
plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief somehow survive the Heck bar, they are too conclusory and
16
vague to put any defendant on notice of his or her alleged actions, and they fail to state a federal
17
constitutional claim. Injunctive relief may not be granted absent a great and immediate threat that
18
the plaintiff will suffer future irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
19
Nava v. City of Dublin, 121 F.3d 453, 458 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds,
20
Hodgers–Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037, 1041 (9th Cir.1999). Past injury to plaintiff is
21
usually insufficient to satisfy this requirement. Id. at 459. Plaintiff has alleged that he was
22
unfairly charged and prosecuted for an offense in 2015, but he has alleged no current indication
23
that defendants intend to prosecute him again now. As there is no allegation of a current, let alone
24
immediate, threat of harm to plaintiff, his claim for injunctive relief is denied without prejudice to
25
bringing such a claim again in the future when and if such a threat arises.
26
Finally, plaintiff states that “a writ of mandate will be required” because he has been
27
unable to obtain documents from his criminal case and has been unable to secure the return of his
28
seized property. Compl. at 7. Federal district courts are without power to issue mandamus to
3
1
direct state courts, state judicial officers, or other state officials in the performance of their duties.
2
A petition for mandamus to compel a state court or official to take or refrain from some action is
3
frivolous as a matter of law. See Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir.
4
1991); see also In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731-32 (7th Cir. 2001) (denying petition for writ of
5
mandamus that would order state trial court to give plaintiff access to certain trial transcripts
6
which he sought in preparation for filing state post-conviction petition; federal court may not, as a
7
general rule, issue mandamus to a state judicial officer to control or interfere with state court
8
litigation). Plaintiff’s mandamus remedy, if any, lies in state court.
CONCLUSION
9
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
which relief may be granted. The dismissal is without prejudice to plaintiff reasserting his claim
12
for damages in a new § 1983 complaint if his conviction is invalidated.
13
14
Plaintiff’s non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 12), is
GRANTED.
15
The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment, and close the file.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
Dated: 4/5/2017
18
19
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?