Quair v. San Mateo County Superior Court

Background

David Sabino Quair, identified as a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. He sought money damages based on alleged improprieties involving his conviction and alleged interference with his efforts to challenge it.

Quair alleged that he signed a plea agreement providing for a 39-month term, but that the abstract of judgment was changed without his knowledge and reflected a 16-month term. He also stated that he had sought judicial review of his conviction but that court staff had thwarted those efforts. He named numerous employees of the San Mateo County Superior Court as defendants.

Screening standards

Because a prisoner sued governmental entities or employees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court was required to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant. It also applied the requirement that a complaint provide enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible and explained that a § 1983 claim requires both a violation of a federal right and action under state authority.

Reasons for dismissal

The court held that Quair’s request for damages concerning his underlying conviction was barred by the rule from Heck v. Humphrey. Under that rule, a § 1983 plaintiff cannot recover damages for an unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm that would make the conviction or sentence invalid, unless the conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid by an authorized state tribunal, or called into question by a federal court. The court stated that Quair had not shown that his conviction had been reversed or expunged.

The court also described absolute immunity for officials performing functions that are functionally comparable to historically protected judicial-process functions. However, the opinion did not expressly identify which particular defendants were immune or enter a separate immunity ruling as to each defendant. Instead, it stated that Quair had made only a few allegations about court staff interfering with his conviction challenges and required him to identify specific defendants and explain how each violated his constitutional rights.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Quair had 28 days from the filing date of the order to file an amended complaint using the required caption and case number and placing the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. The amended complaint had to include every claim he wished to pursue and could not incorporate the original complaint by reference. The court stated that failure to amend within the deadline would result in dismissal of the case. The order also required Quair to keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court orders.