Herndon v. Maher
- Charles Breyer
- 3:22-cv-01366
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Herndon v. Maher, Judge Breyer dismissed without prejudice a damages complaint challenging an uninvalidated state conviction under Section 1983.
Gerrod Herndon's damages claims against Lt. Maher were dismissed without prejudice; the court granted Herndon permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
What happened
In Herndon v. Maher, Gerrod Herndon, a former state prisoner, sued Lt. Maher for damages based on allegedly unlawful prosecution, conviction, and sentencing. He represented himself and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee but found that the damages claim could not proceed because winning it would necessarily call the state conviction or sentence into question. The opinion says Herndon must first have the conviction or sentence invalidated through the appropriate process before seeking these damages in federal court.
Judge Charles R. Breyer dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim under the federal screening statute. The order allows Herndon to file a new complaint if a claim later becomes legally available.
The detailed version
- Herndon v. Maher · No. 3:22-cv-01366
- Charles Breyer
- Apr. 22, 2022
Background
Gerrod Herndon, a former state prisoner who was then at All Saints Extended Care, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Lt. Maher. He sought damages for allegedly unlawful criminal prosecution, conviction, and sentence. Herndon represented himself and also asked to proceed without paying the filing fee based on financial hardship.
Fee request
The court granted Herndon's request to proceed without paying the filing fee based solely on his affidavit of poverty.
Legal standard
The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) permits dismissal of a case filed without paying the filing fee if the case is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court also noted that pleadings filed by people without lawyers must be read liberally.
To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a right under the Constitution or federal law was violated and that the violation was committed by someone acting under state authority.
Court's analysis
The court applied the rule from Heck v. Humphrey. Under that rule, a person generally cannot use a Section 1983 damages claim to challenge conduct that would make the person's conviction or sentence invalid unless the conviction or sentence has already been reversed on appeal, expunged, declared invalid by an authorized state tribunal, or invalidated by a federal court's writ ordering release from unlawful custody.
The court concluded that a judgment in Herndon's favor would necessarily imply that his state conviction was invalid. The court further found that the conviction had not already been invalidated. Although Herndon stated that he was seeking expungement under California's Clean Slate Act or through an expungement petition, the court said he had to obtain expungement from the appropriate state agency or court before seeking damages under Section 1983 in this federal court.
Disposition
The court dismissed Herndon's complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The order states that the dismissal is without prejudice to filing a new complaint if a claim later becomes legally available.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.