Davis v. Suhr

Background

John L. Davis, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case had been stayed while his criminal proceeding was pending. After the stay was lifted, the court dismissed his second amended complaint but allowed him to amend. Davis then filed a document that the court treated as a third amended complaint, along with motions seeking injunctive relief.

Claims and Legal Standards

Davis alleged that San Francisco police officers and federal officials conspired to have him falsely arrested and tried to kill him. He sought money damages. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a constitutional or federal right and action by a person acting under state law.

The court applied the prisoner-screening requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule from Heck v. Humphrey, which generally bars a § 1983 damages claim when success would undermine a criminal conviction or sentence that has not been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or otherwise called into question by a federal court.

Analysis

The court noted that Davis had previously pleaded no contest to criminal charges related to domestic-violence allegations. In an earlier screening order, the court had explained that his damages claims were barred by the Heck rule unless his conviction was later reversed or overturned. The court had also explained that, to the extent Davis was challenging a conspiracy to investigate or arrest him that was not barred by Heck, merely asserting that officials conspired against him was insufficient.

The court concluded that Davis’s third amended complaint did not address the Heck problem and did not cure the deficiencies identified earlier. It held that the claims were barred by Heck. For any claims not barred by Heck, the court held that Davis’s general allegations of conspiracy and false arrest were not plausible enough to state a claim. Because Davis had already received multiple opportunities to amend, the court found that further amendment would be futile.

The court separately considered Davis’s motions for injunctive relief concerning his conditions of confinement. It found those claims unrelated to the underlying complaint and denied the motions. The court stated that Davis could file a separate civil-rights action concerning those conditions.

Disposition

The action was dismissed for failure to state a claim and as barred by Heck. The dismissal was without leave to amend. The motions for injunctive relief listed at Docket Nos. 35, 36, and 37 were denied. The clerk was directed to close the case. The order states that Davis may file a new case if his conviction is reversed or expunged.