1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EDDIE LAMAR DUNBAR, No. C 19-7830 WHA (PR) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v. 10 JUDGE KEVIN MURPHY; 11 MALISHA JONES; 12 Defendants. / 13 14 INTRODUCTION 15 Plaintiff, an inmate at the Alameda County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights case under 16

against the judge and prosecutor involved in his pending criminal proceedings 17 in state court. He requests monetary compensation and to have his charges dismissed. He is 18 granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons discussed 19 below, the complaint is dismissed. 20 ANALYSIS 21 A. STANDARD OF REVIEW 22 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 23 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 24 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 25 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro 27 se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't,

, 699 28 (9th Cir. 1990). 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the 2 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the 3 statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds 4 upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) (citations omitted). 5 Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a 6 plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than 7 labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 8 do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative 9 level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) (citations omitted). A 10 complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face."

11 at 1974. 12 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 13 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) 14 that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 15 West v. Atkins,

(1988). 16 B. LEGAL CLAIMS 17 Plaintiff claims that defendants denied him counsel, falsified evidence, concealed 18 exculpatory evidence, coerced jurors, engaged in malicious prosecution, and committed other 19 violations of his rights in the course of his prosecution for criminal charges. He is currently in 20 custody on those charges. He seeks to have the charges dismissed, money damages, and to have 21 criminal charges filed against the defendants. 22 His claims for damages are barred. In order to recover damages for an allegedly 23 unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose 24 unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a plaintiff must prove that the 25 conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, 26 declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into 27 question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey,

1 477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence 2 that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under Section. Id. at 487. Plaintiff’s claims 3 for violations of his constitutional rights at trial and in the course of his prosecution, if 4 successful, would necessarily imply that his conviction was not valid. Consequently, this claim 5 is barred by Heck. 6 Plaintiff may not obtain dismissal of charges against him. Habeas is the exclusive 7 remedy for the prisoner who seeks immediate or speedier release from confinement. Skinner v. 8 Switzer,

(2011). The only federal remedy for challenging the validity of 9 his state court conviction is a habeas petition under

. Therefore, to defeat the 10 charges against him, plaintiff must file a federal habeas petition, but only after completing all 11 state court appeals, 12 Plaintiff’s request to have the defendants criminally charges is beyond the purview of the 13 courts. That decision is within the sole discretion of a prosecutor, to whom plaintiff should 14 direct any such request. 15 CONCLUSION 16 For the reasons set out above, this case is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable 17 claim for relief. This dismissal is without prejudice to plaintiff re-filing his damages claims if 18 his conviction is ever expunged, reversed, invalidated, or otherwise called into question. He may 19 also seek to overturn his conviction or sentence by filing a habeas petition in federal court, but 20 only after exhausting all of his available state court appeals. 21 The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: December 9 , 2019. 24 WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28