Bonilla v. Dawson
Filing
17
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING 11 MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT; DENYING 12 MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/7/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,
4
5
6
No. C 12-0627 CW (PR)
Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL;
DENYING MOTION FOR
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
AS MOOT
v.
FLOY E. DAWSON,
7
Defendant.
/
8
9
(Docket nos. 11 & 12)
Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Prison, filed this civil action in the San Francisco County
11
Superior Court.
12
Defendant Floy E. Dawson removed the action to this Court
13
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442.
14
States Attorney.
15
Attorney Abraham A. Simmons, who has filed a motion to dismiss the
16
complaint.
17
Dawson is a former Assistant United
He is represented by Assistant United States
Because this action was filed by a prisoner, the Court must
18
engage in a preliminary screening of the complaint to determine
19
whether Plaintiff's allegations state cognizable claims for relief.
20
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
21
For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is dismissed
22
for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief and the motion
23
to dismiss is denied as moot.
24
STANDARD OF REVIEW
25
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any
26
case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or
27
officer or employee of a governmental entity.
28
In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
1
dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a
2
claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from
3
a defendant who is immune from such relief.
4
Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.
5
Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
6
7
Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
Balistreri v.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges that in 1988, Dawson, who at the time was an
Assistant United States Attorney in the Northern District of
9
California, conspired with the FBI to fabricate a story that phone
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
records implicating Plaintiff in the murder of his business partner
11
had been obtained lawfully in connection with a federal grand jury
12
investigation.
13
illegally.
14
phone records to the Alameda County District Attorney's Office,
15
which used them to obtain his conviction.
16
from Dawson for participating in a civil conspiracy to convict him.
17
When liberally construed, Plaintiff's allegations arguably
18
assert a claim for relief under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents,
19
403 U.S. 388, 392-97 (1971), which provides for a private cause of
20
action under the Constitution for allegations of constitutional
21
violations made against federal employees, and/or under the Federal
22
Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) (FTCA), which provides
23
district courts with exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions for
24
money damages "for injury or loss of property, or personal injury
25
or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any
26
employee" of the federal government while acting within the scope
27
of his office or employment.
According to Plaintiff, the records were obtained
Plaintiff further alleges that Dawson disclosed the
Plaintiff seeks damages
28 U.S.C. § 1346(b).
28
2
1
Plaintiff's allegations fail to state a cognizable claim for
2
relief under Bivens or the FTCA, however, because the relief he
3
seeks is barred by the holding of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
4
(1994).
5
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, held that "in order to recover
6
damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment,
7
or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render
8
a conviction or sentence invalid" a § 1983 plaintiff must prove
9
that the conviction or sentence has been invalidated previously.
In Heck, the Supreme Court, addressing a claim for damages
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Id. at 486-87.
11
Heck to cases brought under Bivens and the FTCA.
12
Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996) (Bivens); Erlin v. United
13
States, 364 F.3d 1127, 1133 (9th Cir. 2004) (FTCA).
14
The Ninth Circuit has extended the rationale of
See Martin v.
Plaintiff here seeks damages for actions taken by Dawson that
15
allegedly resulted in Plaintiff's unlawful arrest, imprisonment,
16
prosecution and conviction.
17
action for damages has yet accrued, and any such claims are barred
18
until Plaintiff's conviction has been invalidated.
19
Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 703 (9th Cir. 2006) (Heck barred plaintiff's
20
claims of wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution and conspiracy
21
among police officers to bring false charges against him); Cabrera
22
v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998) (Heck
23
barred plaintiff's false arrest and imprisonment claims until
24
conviction was invalidated); Smithart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952
25
(9th Cir. 1996) (Heck barred plaintiff's claims that defendants
26
lacked probable cause to arrest him and brought unfounded criminal
27
charges against him).
28
//
Under Heck, however, no cause of
3
See Guerrero v.
1
As Heck applies to Plaintiff's claims whether they arise under
2
Bivens or the FTCA, the present action is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C.
3
§ 1915A because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
4
granted.
5
reasserting his claim for damages in a new action once a cause of
6
action has accrued.1
7
8
In view of the above, Defendant's motion to dismiss the
complaint is DENIED as moot.
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
The dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the
file.
11
This Order terminates Docket nos. 11 and 12.
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
Dated:
8/7/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff also has filed a request for a declaratory judgment
that his constitutional rights were violated as the result of
prosecutorial misconduct in his state criminal proceedings. This
request is not properly brought in this action against a federal
actor for damages; as the Court has explained previously to
Plaintiff in several orders, any claim that he is entitled to
"immediate or speedier release" from confinement may be asserted
only in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. At this time,
Plaintiff is precluded from having the Court consider any pro se
habeas challenge to his conviction because counsel has been
appointed to represent him in his pending federal habeas action.
See Bonilla v. Ayers, C 08-0471 CW, Docket no. 129.
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?
