McCoy v. Wong
Filing
4
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 08/29/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
DANNY MCCOY,
No. C-12-3874 TEH (PR)
7
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
9
MATTHEW ANDERSON,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Defendant.
11
________________________________/
12
DANNY MCCOY,
13
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
No. C-12-3875 TEH (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
V.
IAN WONG,
Defendant.
/
17
18
19
Plaintiff Danny McCoy, an inmate at Lompoc Federal Prison
20
located in Lompoc, California, has filed two pro se complaints under
21
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
22
that, on February 3, 2009, El Cerrito Police Officer Ian Wong
23
unlawfully detained and searched him, unlawfully seized items and
24
falsified his police report regarding the incident.
25
C 12-3874 TEH, Plaintiff alleges that, on February 28, 2009,
26
Richmond Police Officer Matthew Anderson unlawfully searched and
27
arrested him, unlawfully seized items and falsified his police
28
report regarding the search and seizure.
In case number C 12-3875 TEH, Plaintiff alleges
In case number
Plaintiff alleges that
1
both Defendants violated his constitutional rights and seeks
2
damages.
Doc. #1.
3
The Court takes judicial notice that on November 19, 2010,
4
Plaintiff was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine base with
5
intent to distribute in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
6
841(b)(1)(B)(iii) and possession of a firearm and ammunition by a
7
felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
8
McCoy, CR 09-0337-CW (Crim. Case), Docket #246.
9
eventual trial and conviction on charges stemming from his
See United States v.
Plaintiff’s
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
encounters with Defendants requires that the action be dismissed
11
because the conviction renders Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims not
12
cognizable under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
13
14
I
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of
15
cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
16
officer or employee of a governmental entity.
17
The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint,
18
or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous,
19
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
20
granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
21
from such relief.”
22
litigants, however, must be liberally construed.
23
Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
24
Id. § 1915A(b).
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Pleadings filed by pro se
Balistreri v.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
25
allege two essential elements:
26
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that
27
the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the
28
(1) that a right secured by the
2
1
color of state law.
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
2
II
3
To recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional
4
conviction or prison sentence, or for other harm caused by actions
5
whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a
6
plaintiff in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action must prove that the
7
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged
8
by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized
9
to make such determination, or called into question by a federal
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
11
486-87.
12
conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not
13
cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
14
Heck, 512 U.S. at
A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a
Id. at 487.
In Plaintiff’s criminal case, he was charged, in a
15
superceding indictment, with four counts: (1) possession with intent
16
to distribute a controlled substance, namely, cocaine base, on
17
February 3, 2009; (2) possession with intent to distribute a
18
controlled substance, namely, methodone pills, on February 28, 2009;
19
(3) possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime
20
on February 28, 2009; and (4) possession of a firearm and ammunition
21
by a felon on February 28, 2009.
22
moved to suppress on the ground that the searches and seizures by
23
Officers Wong and Anderson were unconstitutional and, after an
24
evidentiary hearing, the Court denied the motion.
25
#63. Plaintiff was tried by a jury which found him guilty on counts
26
one and four.
27
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed the conviction.
28
Crim. Case, Docket #38.
Crim. Case Docket #246.
3
Plaintiff
Crim. Case Docket
Plaintiff appealed to the
Crim.
1
Case Docket #308.1
2
The cocaine base upon which count one is predicated was
seized incident to the search initiated by Defendant Wong on
4
February 3, 2009, and the firearm upon which count four is
5
predicated was seized incident to the search initiated by Defendant
6
Anderson on February 28, 2009.
7
cases that the searches and seizures were unlawful would
8
impermissibly imply that his conviction is invalid.
9
Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 583-84 (9th Cir. 2007) (Heck bars suit for
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
3
damages attributable to allegedly unreasonable search that produced
11
evidence introduced in criminal trial resulting in plaintiff’s
12
conviction).
13
and Anderson are barred under the rational of Heck.
A determination in Plaintiff’s civil
See Whitaker v.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Wong
14
III
15
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s complaints are
16
dismissed under the rationale of Heck for failure to state a claim
17
upon which relief may be granted.
18
Clerk shall close the files.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
DATED
08/29/2012
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.12\McCoy-12-3874-5 Dis Heck.wpd
1
The Ninth Circuit vacated Petitioner’s sentence and remanded to
the district court for re-sentencing on grounds that are not relevant
to this Order.
4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
