Dunbar v. Murphy
- William Alsup
- 3:19-cv-07830
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Dunbar v. Murphy, Judge Alsup dismissed a prisoner’s civil-rights case, barring damages claims and directing release-related challenges to habeas proceedings.
Eddie Lamar Dunbar’s civil-rights claims against Judge Kevin Murphy and Malisha Jones were dismissed; the order preserved the possibility of refiling his damages claims if the stated condition later occurs.
What happened
In Dunbar v. Murphy, Eddie Lamar Dunbar, an incarcerated plaintiff representing himself, sued Judge Kevin Murphy and Malisha Jones under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that they denied him counsel, falsified and concealed evidence, coerced jurors, and maliciously prosecuted him during his state criminal proceedings. He sought money, dismissal of the charges, and criminal charges against the defendants.
The court ruled that Dunbar’s damages claims could not proceed because success would imply that his conviction or imprisonment was invalid, and the opinion says he had not shown that the conviction had been reversed, expunged, invalidated, or otherwise called into question. The court also said he could not use this case to obtain dismissal of the charges; a federal petition challenging the validity of his state-court conviction or sentence was the proper route, but only after he completed available state appeals. The request to have the defendants criminally charged was outside the court’s authority.
Judge Alsup dismissed the case for failure to state a claim for which relief was available. The order stated that the dismissal was without prejudice to refiling the damages claims if the conviction were later expunged, reversed, invalidated, or otherwise called into question, and the clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.
The detailed version
- Dunbar v. Murphy · No. 3:19-cv-07830
- William Alsup
- Dec. 9, 2019
Background
Eddie Lamar Dunbar, an inmate at the Alameda County Jail, filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims against state actors for violating federal rights. He sued Judge Kevin Murphy and Malisha Jones, whom the opinion identifies as participants in his pending state criminal proceedings. Dunbar alleged that the defendants denied him counsel, falsified evidence, concealed evidence favorable to him, coerced jurors, maliciously prosecuted him, and committed other rights violations. He sought monetary compensation, dismissal of the criminal charges, and criminal charges against the defendants.
The court granted Dunbar permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order. Because he was a prisoner suing governmental officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At that stage, the court had to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought money from an immune defendant.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the rule from Heck v. Humphrey. Under that rule, a prisoner generally cannot obtain damages for conduct that would necessarily show that a conviction or sentence is invalid unless the conviction or sentence has already been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The court concluded that Dunbar’s claims about violations during his prosecution and trial, if successful, would necessarily imply that his conviction was invalid. It therefore held that the damages claims were barred by Heck.
The court also held that Dunbar could not obtain dismissal of the charges in this civil-rights action. It explained that a prisoner seeking immediate or speedier release must use a federal habeas petition, and that a challenge to the validity of a state-court conviction must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after available state-court appeals have been completed.
Finally, the court said that ordering criminal charges against the defendants was beyond the court’s authority. According to the opinion, the decision to bring criminal charges rests solely with a prosecutor.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. The order stated that the dismissal was without prejudice to Dunbar refiling his damages claims if his conviction were later expunged, reversed, invalidated, or otherwise called into question. The order also stated that he could seek to overturn his conviction or sentence through a federal habeas petition after exhausting his available state-court appeals. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.