Sjodin v. State of California
- James Donato
- 3:23-cv-00195
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Sjodin v. State of California, Judge Donato dismissed the case without prejudice for an unpaid filing fee or incomplete fee-waiver application and denied three motions.
The dismissal affected Kirk Ardell Sjodin’s civil-rights case. The court’s notice also addressed the requirements for any future damages claim based on his conviction or imprisonment.
What happened
Kirk Ardell Sjodin, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights case under a federal law that allows suits against government officials. The defendants were the State of California and others.
The court had told Sjodin that he needed either to pay the filing fee or submit a complete application to proceed without paying it. After 28 days passed without either correction, the court dismissed the case without prejudice. The opinion does not describe the specific claims or the relief sought in the case.
The court also denied Sjodin’s motions identified as Docket Nos. 6, 8, and 9. Judge Donato advised that a person seeking money damages based on an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment must first show that the conviction or sentence was overturned, expunged, or declared invalid. The court noted that Sjodin had also filed a petition seeking to overturn his conviction.
The detailed version
- Sjodin v. State of California · No. 3:23-cv-00195
- James Donato
- Mar. 2, 2023
Background
Kirk Ardell Sjodin, identified as a state prisoner acting without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case named the State of California and other defendants. The court had notified Sjodin that he had not paid the filing fee or submitted a complete application to proceed without paying the fee. The court gave him 28 days to correct those deficiencies.
Ruling
More than 28 days passed, and Sjodin had not paid the filing fee or filed a complete application to proceed without paying it. The court dismissed the case without prejudice. That means the dismissal did not bar a later filing, although the opinion does not state any additional conditions for refiling.
The court denied Sjodin’s motions at Docket Nos. 6, 8, and 9. The opinion does not identify the specific relief requested in those motions.
Additional notice
The court advised that, under the rule discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, a person seeking damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment must demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, or declared invalid. The court also noted that Sjodin had simultaneously filed a petition seeking to overturn his conviction. It stated that, if the conviction were overturned, he should file a damages case in the district where he was convicted and where the defendants reside.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.