1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID SABINO QUAIR, Case No. 20-cv-02273-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 9 v. TO AMEND

10 SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under

. He 14 has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 15 DISCUSSION 16 STANDARD OF REVIEW 17 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 18 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 20 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 21 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 22 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th 23 Cir. 1990). 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 25 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 26 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 27 relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 1 the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) (citations 2 omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 3 face.”

. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 4 standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 5 must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 6 should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 7 to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). 8 To state a claim under

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

(1988). 11 LEGAL CLAIMS 12 Plaintiff seeks money damages with respect to improprieties concerning his conviction and 13 interference with his attempts to challenge the conviction. In order to recover damages for an 14 allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose 15 unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a plaintiff suing under

1983 must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by 17 executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or 18 called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 19

(1994). A claim for damages relating to a conviction or sentence that has 20 not been invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487. 21 The United States Supreme Court has recognized that some officials perform special 22 functions which, because of their similarity to functions that would have been immune when 23 Congress enacted § 1983, deserve absolute protection from damages liability. Buckley v. 24 Fitzsimmons,

(1993). This immunity extends to individuals performing 25 functions necessary to the judicial process. Miller v. Gammie,

(9th Cir. 26 2003). Under the common law, judges, prosecutors, trial witnesses, and jurors were absolutely 27 immune for such critical functions.

. The Court has taken a “functional approach” to the 1 nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.” Buckley, 509 2 U.S. at 269 (1993) (quoting Forrester v. White,

(1988)). Thus, state actors are 3 granted absolute immunity from damages liability in suits under § 1983 only for actions taken 4 while performing a duty functionally comparable to one for which officials were immune at 5 common law. Miller,

. 6 Plaintiff alleges that he signed a plea agreement to serve 39 months but the abstract of 7 judgment was altered without his knowledge, and reflects the term is only 16 months. Plaintiff 8 states he has sought judicial review of his conviction, but his attempts have been thwarted by court 9 staff. Presumably, plaintiff feels he should have been released from custody by this time. He 10 names as defendants many judicial employees of the San Mateo County Superior Court. 11 To the extent plaintiff seeks money damages regarding his underlying conviction, his claim 12 is barred by Heck. Plaintiff has not shown that his conviction has been reversed or expunged. 13 Plaintiff has presented only a few allegations concerning how court staff interfered with his 14 challenges to his conviction. The complaint is dismissed, and plaintiff will be provided one 15 opportunity to amend. He must identify specific defendants and describe how they violated his 16 constitutional rights in light of the legal standards set forth above. 17 CONCLUSION 18 1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended complaint must 19 be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption 20 and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first 21 page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must 22 include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th 23 Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to 24 amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this case. 25 2. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 26 Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice 27 of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to 1 Civil Procedure 41(b). 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: June 16, 2020 4 5 JAMES TO 6 United Stgfes District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

13 14 © 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28