United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a California prisoner proceeding pro se. He filed this civil
rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against state
officials involved in his conviction in state court and
against a federal judge who denied his habeas petition
challenging that conviction. Leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons
discussed below, the complaint is Dismissed
for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.
Standard of Review
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). In its review the court must identify any
cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1), (2).
Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri
v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not
necessary; the statement need only '"give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v.
Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).
Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does
not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a
plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his
'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations
omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face."
Id. at 1974.
claims that state and local officials - the former Governor
and Attorney General, the attorneys who prosecuted and were
appointed to represent him at trial and on appeal - conspired
to wrongfully convict him of violating state criminal law. He
also claims that a federal judge participated in this
conspiracy by denying his habeas petition challenging that
conviction. He is presently serving the sentence he received
based upon that conviction. He seeks damages and injunctive
claims for damages are barred. In 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 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 Section. Id. at
487. Plaintiffs claim for wrongful conviction, if successful,
would necessarily imply that his conviction was not valid.
Consequently, this claim is barred by Heck.
may not obtain injunctive relief. Habeas is the exclusive
remedy for the prisoner who seeks immediate or speedier
release from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer, 562
U.S. 521, 533-34 (2011). The only federal remedy for
challenging the validity of his state court conviction is a
habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Plaintiff
indicates that he has already pursued such a petition, to no
reasons set out above, this case is
Dismissed for failure to state a cognizable
claim for relief. This dismissal is without prejudice to
plaintiff re-filing his damages claims if his ...