1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DERRICK D. HARPER, Case No. 23-cv-02998-PCP

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 MARK PETERSON, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Derrick D. Harper, an inmate at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, filed 14 this pro se civil rights action under

. The Court dismissed the original complaint 15 with partial leave to amend. Dkt. No. 11. The Court gave Mr. Harper a very limited chance to 16 amend: “Dismissal is with leave to amend only as to § 1983 claims not premised upon Mr. 17 Harper’s conviction.” Id. at 4 (emphasis in original). 18 After extensions of time, Mr. Harper filed an Amended Complaint and a Habeas Petition. 19 Dkt. Nos. 16–17. The amended pleadings now are before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915A. Mr. Harper again seeks release from custody and damages for alleged wrongs during his 21 criminal trial. See Dkt. Nos. 16–17. He has not identified any injury other than allegedly 22 unconstitutional actions during his criminal trial. See id. He sues Contra Costa County district 23 attorneys and superior court judges for “corruption,” “prosecutorial misconduct,” and “supervisory 24 liability,” without any supporting facts. See id. 25 I. Legal Standard 26 Federal courts must screen any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental 27 entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must 1 upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant immune from such 2 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. 3 Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1990). 4 II. Analysis 5 As the Court explained in its prior order, any request for release must be brought in a 6 habeas action and cannot be brought until Mr. Harper has fully exhausted his direct appeals in 7 state court. See Dkt. No. 11 at 2–3. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

8 provides the “exclusive remedy” for a prisoner who seeks “‘immediate or speedier release’” from 9 confinement. Skinner v. Switzer,

, 533–34 (2011). Civil rights complaints seeking 10 habeas relief are generally dismissed without prejudice so that the complainant can pursue the 11 same claim in a future petition under

. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa,

583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court cannot convert this civil rights action to a habeas petition on 13 Mr. Harper’s behalf. See

Instead, Mr. Harper must request release via a petition for a writ of 14 habeas corpus in a new case. 15 The Court also explained that Mr. Harper could not seek damages for alleged errors during 16 his criminal trial unless and until his criminal conviction was vacated. See Dkt. No. 11 at 3–4 17 (explaining that Mr. Harper’s civil rights claims were Heck-barred). There is no indication that 18 Mr. Harper’s conviction has been vacated, and the attached habeas petition suggests that it is still 19 in force. See Dkt. No. 17. Mr. Harper’s request for damages thus remains Heck-barred. Dismissal 20 of these claims is without prejudice to Mr. Harper filing a civil rights action after he succeeds in 21 getting his conviction vacated. 22 Because Mr. Harper failed to remedy the defects previously identified, and those defects 23 appear to be incurable, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 24 III. Conclusion 25 This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 26 Because amendment would be futile, dismissal is without leave to amend. Dismissal is without 27 prejudice to pursuing claims for injunctive relief after all state proceedings have concluded and 1 The Court certifies that any appeal of this order is not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. 2 {| § 1915(a)(3). 3 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: April 9, 2025 May P. Casey Pit 9 United States District Judge 10 1] as 12

13 «14

16

17

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