United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
RE: DKT. NOS. 3, 6, 7
JAMES DONATO, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a condemned prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed this case in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which transferred the case to this Court. Named as defendants are the State of California, Governor Brown, and Attorney General Harris and plaintiff challenges his conviction and the practices and procedures of death penalty appeals in California. Plaintiff essentially seeks the Court to overturn his conviction and the death penalty and to provide money damages. On March 13, 2008, plaintiff was sentenced to death in Los Angeles County. The California Supreme Court appointed counsel for his direct appeal on January 8, 2013. On February 20, 2013, the California Supreme Court denied plaintiff's pro se state habeas petitions, however his direct appeal continues.
Court records indicate that plaintiff has repeatedly filed similar cases in this and other districts and appeals with the Ninth Circuit that have all been denied. See, e.g., Shove v. Schwarzenegger, 5:09-cv-0656-RMW (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2009), appeal denied In re: Theodore C. Shove, No. 96-80069 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2010); Shove v. Chappelle, No. 13-1475-R (C.D. Cal. March 11, 2013), appeal denied in Shove v. Chappelle, No. 13-72905 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2013); Shove v. Brown, 5:12-cv-0211-RMW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2013), appeal denied In re: Theodore C. Shove, No. 96-80069 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2014).
To the extent plaintiff seeks to challenge his conviction, he may file a federal habeas petition after his claims have been exhausted in state court. Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). To the extent plaintiff seeks money damages arising from his conviction, that claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As plaintiff has repeatedly brought these same claims before and has repeatedly been informed of the deficiencies of his allegations, this action is dismissed as frivolous, malicious and for failure to state a claim.
1. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice as it is frivolous, malicious and fails to state a claim.
2. Plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel and file additional exhibits (Docket Nos. 3, 6, 7) are DENIED.
3. The Clerk shall close ...