Womack v. Newsom

Background

Rodney Jerome Womack, an inmate at Corcoran State Prison, filed this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Womack was convicted of two robbery counts in Alameda County Superior Court in 1982 and received a three-year prison term. In 2005, he was convicted of robbery in Contra Costa County Superior Court. The court found that he had suffered the 1982 conviction and imposed a sentence of 35 years to life under California’s Three Strikes Law, partly because of that earlier conviction. The 2005 conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.

Womack had previously pursued federal challenges to the convictions and sentence. His 2008 federal petition challenging the 2005 conviction was denied on the merits. His 2018 federal petition was dismissed as an unauthorized second or successive petition challenging the 2005 conviction. In a 2020 civil-rights case, he sued five federal judges and the California Governor, alleging that they had not provided a hearing about whether his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated in the 1982 case. That case was dismissed because the judges had absolute judicial immunity and the Governor had not participated in federal judicial decision-making.

In this case, Womack alleged that the failure to appoint counsel for the 1982 conviction violated his Sixth Amendment right. He also alleged that federal courts had refused to decide the issue in 2018 and afterward. He claimed that Newsom was liable because Womack had sent Newsom a copy of a petition for review that allegedly put him on notice of the lack of counsel and of underlying systemic racism. Womack requested a jury decision on whether the State failed to appoint counsel and whether that failure resulted from systemic racism.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a complaint under § 1983 must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and action by a person acting under state law. It then concluded that Womack’s complaint was not a proper civil-rights claim because its substance was a challenge to the validity of his conviction and sentence.

The court applied the rule that a state prisoner challenging the fact or duration of imprisonment, and seeking immediate or speedier release, must use a federal petition challenging imprisonment rather than a civil-rights action. The court concluded that Womack’s claim depended on showing that the 1982 conviction was invalid because he lacked counsel. If that conviction could not be used to increase the 2005 sentence, Womack would seek speedier release. The court therefore held that such a claim could be pursued only through the federal petition process, not under § 1983. The court also stated that Womack could not use this civil-rights action as a substitute appeal from the denial of his earlier federal petition.

The court separately applied the rule from Heck v. Humphrey. That rule generally bars a civil-rights action when success would necessarily imply that an existing criminal conviction or sentence is invalid, unless the conviction or sentence has already been overturned or otherwise set aside. The court held that success on Womack’s complaint would call into question the 2005 conviction and sentence because the 2005 sentence had been increased based on the 1982 conviction. The request for a jury trial did not avoid the bar because a jury trial would only be a means of obtaining a result that would undermine the conviction and sentence.

The court also questioned the factual basis of the complaint. It stated that Womack’s filings in earlier cases indicated that he had counsel in the 1982 case. Those filings referred to an attorney of record and stated that Womack had discussed the plea with his attorney. The court also noted that a plea form contained evidence that Womack was represented by counsel. The court concluded that the earlier records showed that Womack had counsel for the 1982 conviction.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. It did not grant leave to amend because amendment would be futile: a prisoner cannot pursue a civil-rights claim that calls into question a still-valid conviction and sentence. The clerk was ordered to close the file. Judge Susan Illston signed the order.