Johnson v. Huertas et al

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall enclose 2 copies of the court's form petition with a copy of this order to Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 4/5/2017. (Copy of order and 2 form petitions mailed to Plaintiff by AMK.) (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CEDRIC CHESTER JOHNSON,
United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiff,

12

Case No. 16-05948 EJD (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

13
14

NERISSA HUERTAS, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action

18
19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the district attorney of Monterey County, his

20

appellate attorney, Officer Manuel Fernandez of the Seaside Police Department, and Judge

21

Pamela Butler. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall be

22

addressed in a separate order.

23

DISCUSSION

24
25
26

A.

Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a

27

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

28

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any

1

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

2

upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

3

from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally

4

construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

5
6

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

7

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

8

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

9

B.

10

Plaintiff’s Claims
Plaintiff claims that he was falsely accused of attempted murder and assault on

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

three police officers of the Seaside Police Department. (Compl. at 3.) He claims that the

12

district attorney made a plea bargain and then “renigged on the deal [sic].” (Id.) Plaintiff

13

claims that Judge Butler “allowed it.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims that Officer Fernandez lied

14

“and said [Plaintiff] ran the car into them.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims that the police found

15

another suspect with incriminating evidence. (Id.) Lastly, he claims ineffective assistance

16

of counsel. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks damages.

17

A claim for damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,

18

or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or

19

sentence invalid is not cognizable under § 1983. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487

20

(1994). A plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct

21

appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to

22

make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of

23

habeas corpus. Id. at 486-87.

24

Here, Plaintiff's allegations that he is unlawfully incarcerated due to Defendants’

25

allegedly unconstitutional actions would, if successful, necessarily imply the invalidity of

26

his state court conviction. However, Plaintiff has failed to show that the conviction has

27

been reversed. See id. As such, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Heck and must be

28

2

1
2

dismissed.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff's

3

filing a new complaint if the challenged conviction and sentence are later invalidated. See

4

Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (claim barred by Heck

5

may be dismissed sua sponte without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915).

6

Furthermore, although a district court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner
attacking the conditions of his confinement as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

8

see Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971), the opposite is not true: A civil

9

rights complaint seeking habeas relief should be dismissed without prejudice to bringing it

10

as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Trimble, 49 F.3d at 586. Accordingly, Plaintiff

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

may seek relief for his allegedly unlawful conviction by filing a petition for a writ of

12

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

13
14

CONCLUSION

15

For the reasons set forth above, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

16

The Clerk shall enclose two copies of the court’s form petition with a copy of this

17

order to Plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

4/5/2017
Dated: _____________________

________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25

Order of Dismissal
PRO-SE\EJD\CR.16\05948Johnson_dism (Heck)

26
27
28

3