United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
an inmate at the Alameda County Jail, filed this pro se civil
rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the judge and
prosecutor involved in his pending criminal proceedings in
state court. He requests monetary compensation and to have
his charges dismissed. He is granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons discussed
below, the complaint is dismissed.
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.
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 deprivation was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
claims that defendants denied him counsel, falsified
evidence, concealed exculpatory evidence, coerced jurors,
engaged in malicious prosecution, and committed other
violations of his rights in the course of his prosecution for
criminal charges. He is currently in custody on those
charges. He seeks to have the charges dismissed, money
damages, and to have criminal charges filed against the
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. Plaintiff's claims for violations of his
constitutional rights at trial and in the course of his
prosecution, if successful, would necessarily imply that his
conviction was not valid. Consequently, this claim is barred
may not obtain dismissal of charges against him. 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.
Therefore, to defeat the charges against him, plaintiff must
file a federal habeas petition, but only after completing all
state court appeals, Plaintiff's request to have the
defendants criminally charges is beyond the purview of the
courts. That decision is within the sole discretion of a
prosecutor, to whom plaintiff should direct any such request.
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 conviction is
ever expunged, reversed, invalidated, or otherwise called
into question. He may also seek to overturn his conviction or
sentence by filing a ...