1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 RODRIC PETRECE STANLEY, JR., Case No. 25-cv-03630-JD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. 10

11 COX, et al., Defendants. 12

13 14 Plaintiff, a convicted prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under

. 15 The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and plaintiff filed an amended 16 complaint. 17 DISCUSSION 18 STANDARD OF REVIEW 19 Federal courts engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress 20 from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). The Court will identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are 22 frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief 23 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings are 24 liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(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.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 27 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 1 cause of action will not do . . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 2 the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) (citations 3 omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 4 face.”

. “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must 5 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 says that he was unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned by Antioch Police. 13 He seeks money damages. To recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or 14 imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction 15 or sentence invalid under Section 1983, a plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has 16 been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal 17 authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a 18 writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994). Consequently, such a 19 claim for damages, that is, one bearing such a relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not 20 been so invalidated, is not cognizable under Section 1983.

. 21 Plaintiff states that on September 25, 2018, he was unlawfully arrested by several police 22 officers and charged with child abduction of his daughter, willful cruelty of a child, and violation 23 of a court custody order, without any supporting evidence. Plaintiff was held for two days and 24 released but was immediately rearrested and charged with child abduction and committing a lewd 25 or lascivious act upon a child. Plaintiff contends that the prosecutor and police officers conspired 26 to suppress favorable evidence and falsified other evidence during his prosecution and unlawfully 27 imprisoned him for six years. On March 18, 2024, the prosecutor dismissed the child abduction 1 of numerous counts of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child and committing forcible lewd 2 acts upon a child. See People v. Stanley, Case No. 05001905710 (Contra Costa County). 3 Plaintiff previously filed a case with the same allegations regarding his September 25, 4 2018, arrest. See Stanley v. Kidd, Case No. 23-cv-0798 JD. That case was stayed pursuant to 5 Wallace v. Kato,

(2007), because plaintiff could not continue with a false arrest 6 claim while the criminal prosecution was ongoing.

Dkt. No. 10 at 2-4. Plaintiff was informed 7 that the stay could be lifted once he was acquitted, convicted, or charges were dismissed. Id. at 4. 8 Plaintiff was told that if he was convicted and if the claim would impugn that conviction, the 9 action would be dismissed. Id. 10 Since plaintiff’s earlier case, he was convicted of multiple counts related to his arrest. The 11 original complaint in this case was dismissed with leave to amend to address why his claims are 12 not still barred by Heck and Wallace. Plaintiff was informed that he cannot obtain money 13 damages related to his arrest, imprisonment, and prosecution unless the conviction is reversed or 14 expunged. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. 15 Plaintiff argues that there was no probable cause to arrest him, and he should be permitted 16 to seek money damages because the child abduction charge was dismissed just prior to his 17 conviction. Dkt. No. 9 at 1-2, 5-9. He also states that there is newly discovered evidence and 18 because of prosecutorial misconduct, he will obtain a new trial or dismissal of the charges. Id. at 19 1-2. Plaintiff notes that that trial court denied his motion to dismiss and suppress evidence due to 20 the illegal arrest that he challenges here. Id. at 28. 21 The issue is whether a judgment in favor of plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim for false arrest 22 and imprisonment would necessarily imply the invalidity of his outstanding criminal conviction. 23 During the criminal prosecution, the trial court specially ruled that the arrest petitioner challenges 24 in this case was proper, and no evidence related to the arrest would be suppressed. A judgment in 25 favor of plaintiff for his Section 1983 claim that he was falsely arrested and imprisoned for 26 abducting the child would call into question his conviction for sexual intercourse or sodomy with 27 the child and committing forcible lewd acts upon the child. 1 CONCLUSION 2 This action is dismissed as duplicative of the earlier stayed case. See Adams v. Cal. Dept. 3 of Health Servs.,

, 688 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff may seek to reopen the earlier case if 4 || the conviction is reversed or overturned. The Clerk is requested to close this case. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: July 14, 2025 7 8 JAMES ATO 9 United SgAtes District Judge 10 11 12

13

15

16

17

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