Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WILLIAMS v. CITY OF OAKLAND

United States District Court, N.D. California


March 22, 2004.

CHARLES L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al, Defendants

The opinion of the court was delivered by: MAXINE CHESNEY, District Judge

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Reggie Jones, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983. Plaintiff sues various local government entities for the alleged violation of his constitutional rights during the course of his prosecution in state court. He alleges that he has been "`unjustly accused by conspiracy and coercion," denied "exculpatory evidence" in his favor, and his personal property has been "illegally searched and seized without a court warrant or order." He seeks money damages.

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Prose pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Page 2

  In order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or term of Imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a plaintiff alleging a violation of § 1983 must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. See Heck v. Humphrey. 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages based upon a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. See id at 487. Plaintiff claims that his constitutional rights have been violated insofar as the charges against him are unjust, exculpatory evidence has been withheld from him, and that he has been subjected to illegal searches and seizure. If proven true, these claims would call into question the validity of his state court convictions. Accordingly, this action is barred until plaintiffs state court convictions have been reversed, expunged, set aside or otherwise called into question.*fn1

  For the foregoing reasons, this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. In light of this dismissal, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and no filing fee is due.

  The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending motions.

  IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.