Broque Anthony Anderson v. San Bernardino Sheriffs Department

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 BROQUE ANTHONY Case No. 5:22-cv-01586-JAK-KES ANDERSON, Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. 14 MAGISTRATE JUDGE SAN BERNARDINO SHERIFF’S 15 DEPARTMENT, et al., 16 Defendants.

20 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the records and files herein, along with the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 31). Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which objections (Dkt. 33) have been made. The Court accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge.

26 In his objections, Plaintiff argued that his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims alleging he was arrested for trespassing without probable cause are not barred by Heck v. | Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) because his trespassing conviction in San | Bernardino County Superior Court (“SBSC’”’) case no. MSB21004039 was | “dismissed and expunged.” (Dkt. 33 at 1.) This Court has obtained records from | the SBSC of which it takes judicial notice. (Dkt. 36.) Those records show that | although Plaintiff moved to have his conviction set aside, the SBSC denied that | motion. No court records show that his trespassing conviction was ever dismissed | and expunged. (Id.) The Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff until September 8, 2023, || to provide a more robust explanation of why he believed that his trespassing | conviction was “dismissed and expunged” and, if appropriate, provide supporting | court records. (Dkt. 34, 35.) Plaintiff failed to file a timely response.

11 For all these reasons, the Court is convinced that Plaintiff's trespassing | conviction has not been dismissed and expunged. As a result, his wrongful arrest | claims remain Heck-barred.

14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED (1) all claims based on Plaintiff's allegedly | unconstitutional arrest at the Holiday Inn in March 2021 (1.¢e., 42 U.S.C. § 1983 | claims alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause) | are dismissed without prejudice as Heck-barred; and (2) Plaintiff may proceed only | on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983/Fourteenth Amendment claim against San Bernardino | County for allegedly confining him at the West Valley Detention Center without | food and water for 96 hours pursuant to a County policy.

23 | DATED: _September 15, 2023 C) Wy. NX JOHN A.KRONSTADT. SSS 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE