Valdez v. Mattke
- Charles Breyer
- 3:23-cv-03967
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Valdez v. Mattke, Judge Breyer dismissed Valdez’s petition without prejudice, allowing a civil-rights complaint, and denied a certificate of appealability.
Ismael Valdez, whose petition was dismissed without prejudice; Justin Mattke, the respondent named in the petition; and any future civil-rights complaint Valdez may bring under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
What happened
In Valdez v. Mattke, Ismael Valdez, who was representing himself, filed a petition asking for relief from alleged harassment by Greenfield Police Department Sergeant Justin Mattke. Valdez sought an order placing Mattke on administrative leave and preventing future harassment of Valdez and his family. The court also granted Valdez permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court explained that a petition challenging imprisonment is meant to seek immediate or earlier release. Valdez’s requested orders would not necessarily affect his release from the current criminal charges, which the opinion said were unrelated to Mattke. The court therefore concluded that this type of claim must be brought, if at all, as a federal civil-rights case rather than through a petition challenging confinement.
Judge Charles R. Breyer dismissed the petition without prejudice to filing a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He denied a certificate of appealability, closed the file, and terminated the remaining motions as moot.
The detailed version
- Valdez v. Mattke · No. 3:23-cv-03967
- Charles Breyer
- Oct. 31, 2023
Background
Ismael Valdez, a pretrial detainee at the Monterey County Jail, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 while representing himself. He alleged that, in 2018, Greenfield Police Department Sergeant Justin Mattke stopped and harassed him on several occasions, including while Valdez was exercising on what he described as the wrong side of town. Valdez asked the court to place Mattke on administrative leave and to prevent Mattke from harassing Valdez or his family after Valdez’s release.
Valdez also asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. Based on his affidavit of poverty, the court granted that request.
Reasoning
The court distinguished between two federal remedies related to imprisonment. A petition under § 2254 is used to seek immediate or earlier release from confinement. A civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is used for claims that do not fall within that central purpose of a release challenge.
The court determined that Valdez’s requested relief did not necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier release from confinement on the criminal charges then pending against him. The court therefore concluded that his claim about future harassment did not fall within the central purpose of a § 2254 petition and, if pursued, had to be brought under § 1983 instead.
Disposition
The court dismissed the § 2254 petition without prejudice to bringing a civil-rights complaint under § 1983. It denied a certificate of appealability because the court concluded that reasonable judges would not debate whether the petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the court’s procedural ruling was correct. The clerk was instructed to close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot.
Judge Charles R. Breyer signed the order on October 31, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.