(PC) Harris v. Madera County, No. 1:2018cv01210 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Assign Case to District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Case be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 4 /12/2019. This case has been assigned to Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill and Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson. The new case number is 1:18-cv-01210-LJO-JDP (PC). Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL JAFAIN HARRIS, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. MADERA COUNTY, 15 Defendant. Case No. 1:18-cv-01210-JDP SCREENING ORDER FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO STATE CLAIM ECF No. 1 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS 16 17 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought 21 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed September 6, 2018, ECF No. 1, is before the 22 court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff alleges that a judge in his criminal trial 23 allowed illegally obtained evidence to be used against him, which led to his conviction. 24 Plaintiff’s claims may not be brought under § 1983 because “judgment in favor of the plaintiff 25 would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.” Heck v. Humphrey 512 26 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Therefore, we recommend that plaintiff’s claims be dismissed without 27 prejudice. 28 1 1 I. SCREENING AND PLEADING REQUIREMENTS 2 A district court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 3 entity, its officer, or its employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any 4 cognizable claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to 5 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 6 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 7 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 9 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 10 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 11 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 12 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 13 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 14 1038 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 530 (2011)). Instead, what 15 plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that give rise to an enforceable right to 16 relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) 17 (citations omitted). 18 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 19 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). However, the court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint 20 “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim 21 which would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 22 2017) (quoting Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014)). 23 II. 24 Plaintiff is a California state prisoner. ECF No. 1 at 1. He names one defendant: Madera 25 26 27 28 THE COMPLAINT County. Id. Plaintiff seeks to bring various claims based on the following facts: On October 2-24, [sic] 2017 U.S. Superior Court Judge Dale Blea allowed illegally obtained evidence provided by the Madera County Department of Corrections to be used against me in a jury trial by the Madera County District Attorney Cavin Cox under the 2 1 adoption of guilt, which represented over 50% of the District Attorney’s case and as a moving force in case (MCR054240)[.] 2 3 Id. at 3. Plaintiff was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Id. He seeks damages and a 4 “jury trial on all issues triable by jury.” Id. at 6. 5 III. 6 In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), the Supreme Court held that to DISCUSSION 7 recover damages for “harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or 8 sentence invalid,” a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence was reversed, 9 expunged, or otherwise invalidated. The favorable-termination rule laid out in Heck provides that 10 claims that, if successful, would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence, must 11 be brought by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus, after exhausting appropriate avenues 12 for relief. See Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750-51 (2004). 13 Here, plaintiff seeks to bring a § 1983 suit challenging the search and seizure that led to 14 his arrest and subsequent criminal conviction. If the court rules that plaintiff’s constitutional 15 rights were violated at his criminal trial, the ruling would imply that his conviction is invalid. See 16 Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. Indeed, the relief plaintiff seeks includes a new trial. See ECF No. 1 at 6. 17 Therefore, plaintiff’s claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey. 18 “In cases where a prisoner’s section 1983 complaint evinced a clear intention to state a 19 habeas claim, we have said that the district court should treat the complaint as a habeas petition.” 20 Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, plaintiff’s claim sounds in 21 both § 1983 and habeas corpus because he seeks both damages and a new trial. Accordingly, we 22 will not recommend conversion of plaintiff’s defective § 1983 claim into a habeas petition. See 23 id. (“When the intent to bring a habeas petition is not clear, however, the district court should not 24 convert a defective section 1983 claim into a habeas petition.”). 25 IV. 26 The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a district judge, who will preside over 27 ORDER this case. The undersigned will remain as the magistrate judge assigned to the case. 28 3 1 IV. RECOMMENDATION 2 We recommend that plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, be dismissed without prejudice for 3 failure to state a claim for relief. The undersigned submits the findings and recommendations to 4 the district judge presiding over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 5 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 6 fourteen days of the service of the findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 7 objections to the findings and recommendations with the court. That document should be 8 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge 9 will review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff’s failure 10 to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. See 11 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: 15 April 12, 2019 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 No. 203 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.