United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THELTON E. HENDERSON JUDGE
a detainee, filed this pro se civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The first amended complaint was
dismissed with leave to amend and Plaintiff has filed a
second amended complaint.
courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or
dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, ” or
“seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).
Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be
liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,
342 (9th Cir. 2010); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated,
and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
alleges that police officers conducted an illegal search and
other illegal acts that led to his arrest.
order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by
actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or
sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff 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. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that
relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so
invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Id.
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). Federal courts should not enjoin
pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of the
state's bad faith or harassment, or a showing that the
statute challenged is "flagrantly and patently violative
of express constitutional prohibitions."
Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, 53-54 (cost, anxiety and
inconvenience of criminal defense not kind of special
circumstances or irreparable harm that would justify federal
court intervention; statute must be unconstitutional in every
"clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever
manner" it is applied).
may be inappropriate in the "extraordinary
circumstance" that (1) the party seeking relief in
federal court does not have an adequate remedy at law and
will suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief,
see Mockaitis v. Harcleroad, 104 F.3d 1522, 1528
(9th Cir. 1997) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44),
or (2) the state tribunal is incompetent by reason of bias,
see Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577-79
(1973). A party who alleges bias must overcome a presumption
of honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators.
See Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Cal.,
67 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).
argues that several police officers falsified police reports,
committed perjury, and lied to a magistrate judge in order to
get a search warrant which led to his arrest. For relief in
this action, Plaintiff previously sought the police officers
to be found guilty and fired and he seeks four million
dollars in damages. Plaintiff is currently being held in
Santa Rita County Jail. It is not clear if the criminal
prosecution is ongoing or if he has already been convicted.
first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend to
provide more information. Plaintiff was told to indicate if
there was an ongoing prosecution or if he had been convicted.
He was told that if he had been convicted he must show why
this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Heck.
If the prosecution is ongoing he was told that he must
discuss why Younger abstention is not appropriate to
the extent he seeks this Court to intervene.
second amended complaint has failed to cure the deficiencies
of the prior complaints. If Plaintiff has already been
convicted he has not demonstrated that the conviction has
been reversed or expunged. To the extent that the prosecution
may be ongoing Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate
extraordinary circumstance to warrant federal court
intervention. Because Plaintiff has already been provided
several opportunities to amend and allowing any further
amendment would be futile this case ...