1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 ANTHONY SMITH, Case No. 25-cv-01088-JSW

7 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 8

9 LA HERRAN, Defendant. 10

11 INTRODUCTION 12 Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro who filed a civil rights complaint under 42

against the District Attorney of San Francisco County. He has been granted leave 14 to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint 15 is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. 16 ANALYSIS 17 A. STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 19 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 21 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

at § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro 23 se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't,

, 699 24 (9th Cir. 1990). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the 26 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the 27 statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon ] in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's 2 || obligation to provide the 'grounds of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and 3 conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.... 4 || Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell 5 || Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) (citations omitted). A complaint 6 || must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Jd. at 1974. 7 || B. LEGAL CLAIMS 8 Plaintiff claims unspecified conditions of his plea agreement “have not been met.” He 9 || seeks to have the agreement “renegotiated” or “‘adjusted to my favor,” set aside, stayed, held 10 || “unenforceable,” or “other capacity,” or be awarded money. Any challenge to the validity of his 11 plea agreement under federal law must be brought in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, not a 12 || civil rights complaint, because success on such claims would affect the fact or duration of his E 13 confinement. See Hill v. McDonough,

(2006); see also Skinner v. Switzer, 562

, 533-34 (2011); Wilkinson v. Dotson,

(2005); Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 3

, 747 (1998); Edwards v. Balisok,

(1997); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 16 || U.S. 475, 500 (1973). i 17 Accordingly, this case will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing his claims Z 18 challenging the validity of his plea agreement in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, after 19 || Plaintiff has exhausted his state court remedies for such claims. 20 CONCLUSION 21 For the above reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall 22 enter judgment and close the file. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: February 13, 2025

26 SK +5 / JYERFREY $/WHITE 27 // [pots Stas District Judge 28 /