Harper v. Peterson

Background

Derrick D. Harper, an inmate at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims. The court had dismissed his original complaint while allowing a limited amendment only for Section 1983 claims not based on his conviction. After receiving extensions, Harper filed an amended complaint and a habeas petition. The court reviewed those pleadings under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Harper sought release from custody and damages for alleged wrongs during his criminal trial. He sued Contra Costa County district attorneys and superior court judges for “corruption,” “prosecutorial misconduct,” and “supervisory liability,” but the court said he provided no supporting facts and identified no injury other than allegedly unconstitutional actions during the trial.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that a request for release from custody must be brought in a separate petition challenging the legality of the custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. It said such relief could not be sought in this civil-rights action and could not be requested until Harper fully exhausted his direct appeals in state court. The court also said it could not convert this case into a custody-challenge petition for him. The order states that Harper must request release in a new case.

For damages, the court applied the rule commonly called the Heck bar: a prisoner generally cannot obtain damages for alleged errors that would undermine an existing criminal conviction unless that conviction has been overturned or otherwise invalidated. The court found no indication that Harper’s conviction had been vacated and said his request for damages therefore remained barred. It stated that dismissal of those claims was without prejudice to filing a civil-rights action after Harper succeeds in having his conviction vacated.

Disposition

The court concluded that Harper had not corrected the previously identified defects and that those defects appeared incurable. It dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and dismissed it without leave to amend. The order separately states that dismissal is without prejudice to pursuing claims for injunctive relief after all state proceedings have concluded.

Judge P. Casey Pitts certified that any appeal of the order was not taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the file.