Kershaw v. City of Santa Clara

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/30/2016. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
RUSSELL KERSHAW,

7

Case No. 16-cv-00984-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

9
CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

10

[Re: ECF 7, 12, 14]

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiff Russell Kershaw’s motion for relief from judgment, motion to

14

amend and supplement the order of relief, and a motion to amend the complaint, which is styled as

15

a request for judicial notice in support of motion to amend the order of relief.1 ECF 7, 12, 14.
The Court has carefully considered and reviewed the pending motions, requests for judicial

16
17

notice, and all of Mr. Kershaw other filings. Mr. Kershaw filed this lawsuit after being arrested

18

and convicted of malicious mischief. Compl. at 4, ECF 1. According to Mr. Kershaw, his

19

criminal conviction violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 2, 6.
In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), the Supreme Court held that in order

20
21

to seek damages under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that his criminal conviction had been

22

reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a writ of habeas corpus. The

23

Court has read all of Mr. Kershaw’s filings and Mr. Kershaw has not indicated that his criminal

24

conviction had been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a writ of

25

habeas corpus. Since Mr. Kershaw’s conviction still stands, the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck

26

v. Humphrey precludes this lawsuit. Thus, the Court finds Mr. Kershaw cannot state a valid claim

27
1

28

Mr. Kershaw’s motion for relief was docketed twice. The filing at ECF 7 contains the motion
and the filing at ECF 10 contains the same motion and certificates of service.

1
2

for relief under § 1983.
In his motions, Mr. Kershaw also states that Subway is “now not registered with the state

3

and is now not paying taxes,” “is in violation of federal law[](Delaney clause of 58)”, and is in

4

“violation of 18 U.S. code ch 77 section 1589.” ECF 12 at 3; see also ECF 14 at 3. Based on Mr.

5

Kershaw’s papers, it appears that he is seeking to protect the health and safety of California

6

citizens from the cancerous effects of sodium nitrate contained in Subway foods. He seeks to

7

amend his complaint to allege claims against Defendants for failure to prosecute Subway for its

8

crimes while instead choosing to prosecute him for his protest. While Mr. Kershaw’s concern for

9

public health is admirable, his prior claims and proposed amendments are not legally sound. To
the extent Mr. Kershaw seeks to allege causes of actions on the preceding grounds, these causes of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

action are unrelated to Mr. Kershaw’s complaint alleging a violation of § 1983. While Mr.

12

Kershaw is not precluded from filing separate actions involving these additional claims, Mr.

13

Kershaw’s proposed additional claims against Defendants are not viable claims under § 1983.

14
15
16
17
18
19

Accordingly, after reviewing all of Mr. Kershaw’s filings and for the reasons stated above,
the Court DENIES Mr. Kershaw’s motions for relief from judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 30, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2