1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 VINCENT RENE TURNER, Case No. 20-cv-01152-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 CECILIA CASTELLANOS, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison, has filed this pro se 15 civil rights action pursuant to

. His complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is now before the 16 Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma 17 pauperis in a separate order. 18 DISCUSSION 19 A. Standard of Review 20 A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 21 seeks redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or an employee of a governmental 22 entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and 23 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 24 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915A(b) (1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 26 Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1990). 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 1 necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 2 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) (citations omitted). 3 “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more 4 than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 5 do . . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 6 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 7 proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

. 8 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 9 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and (2) that the 10 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

42, 48 (1988). 12 B. Complaint 13 Plaintiff has named as defendants Judge Cecilia Castellanos and Deputy District Attorney 14 Sharon Carney. Plaintiff alleges that Carney withheld exculpatory evidence and produced this 15 evidence only after plaintiff was convicted, and that Judge Castellanos was aware of the 16 exculpatory evidence but allowed Carney to withhold it. Plaintiff seeks $60 million in monetary 17 damages. 18 The Court will dismiss this action because it is barred by Heck v. Humphrey,

, 19 486-87 (1994).1 Pursuant to Heck, in order to recover damages for harm caused by actions whose 20 unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a

plaintiff must 21 prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive 22 order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into 23 question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck,

. If 24

25 1 Plaintiff’s claims are also likely barred by the doctrines of judicial and prosecutorial immunity. See Pierson v. Ray,

(1967) (state judge is absolutely immune from civil 26 liability for damages for acts performed in her judicial capacity); Imbler v. Pachtman,

(1976) (state prosecuting attorney enjoys absolute immunity from liability under 42

for his conduct in “pursuing a criminal prosecution” insofar as he acts within his 1 success in the Section 1983 suit would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of the confinement 2 || or its duration, the Section 1983 suit is barred no matter the relief sought and no matter the target 3 of the suit. Wilkinson v. Dotson,

(2005). Here, a § 1983 action alleging the 4 || withholding of exculpatory evidence, if successful, would necessarily imply the invalidity of 5 || Plaintiffs conviction, and is not cognizable under Heck unless Plaintiff can show his conviction 6 || has already been invalidated. Accordingly, his claim is not cognizable under Section 1983 and 7 must be dismissed. 8 CONCLUSION 9 For the reasons set forth above, this action is DISMISSED as barred by Heck. The Clerk 10 shall enter judgment in favor of defendants and close the file. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || Dated: April 21, 2020 . :

Y 14 nited States District Judge

2 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28