Ellawendy v. Monterey County Superior Court
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-02708
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Ellawendy v. Monterey County Superior Court, Judge Freeman paused briefing, sought a response to a proposed amendment, and struck a separate complaint.
Abdelfatah Ellawendy, the respondent Monterey County Superior Court, and the parties named in the separate amended complaint—the Monterey County Office of the Public Defender and Michael Belter.
What happened
Abdelfatah Ellawendy, a state parolee representing himself, challenged his 2019 state conviction in a federal petition. The court had previously found that only his claim about whether his plea was voluntary could proceed and had dismissed his other claims.
Ellawendy later filed another document that the court treated as a request to amend his petition. The court ordered the respondent to oppose the proposed amendment or state that it did not oppose it, and it paused briefing on the respondent’s earlier answer. Ellawendy also filed a separate complaint seeking an injunction and damages against the Monterey County Office of the Public Defender and Michael Belter.
The court struck that complaint from the habeas case because a civil-rights lawsuit under federal law must be filed as a new action. Judge Beth Labson Freeman explained that damages claims challenging an allegedly invalid conviction or imprisonment generally cannot proceed unless the conviction or sentence has first been invalidated, so Ellawendy could pursue such damages only if he prevailed in the habeas case.
The detailed version
- Ellawendy v. Monterey County Superior Court · No. 5:20-cv-02708
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 23, 2021
Background
Abdelfatah Ellawendy, a state parolee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2019 state conviction from Monterey County. The court previously determined that the petition’s only cognizable claim was whether Ellawendy’s plea was voluntary and dismissed the other claims. The respondent then filed an answer addressing the merits of that remaining claim.
Nearly six months later, Ellawendy filed another document titled “petition for a writ of habeas corpus.” The court treated that filing as a motion for permission to file an amended petition. The court noted that the filing appeared not to have been served on the respondent.
Ellawendy also filed an “Amended Complaint” against the Monterey County Office of the Public Defender and his attorney, Michael Belter. He sought injunctive relief and damages.
Court’s actions
The court directed the respondent to file and serve either an opposition to the proposed amended petition or a statement of non-opposition. Ellawendy could file a reply if the respondent opposed the amendment. Because the proposed amendment required briefing, the court stayed, or paused, briefing on the respondent’s existing answer.
The court struck the “Amended Complaint” from this action. It explained that any civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 would have to be filed as a new case and would be subject to the applicable filing fees.
The court also explained that, under Heck v. Humphrey, a § 1983 plaintiff seeking damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction, imprisonment, or related harm must show that the conviction or sentence was reversed, invalidated, expunged, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The court stated that Ellawendy could pursue such a damages action only if he prevailed in this habeas case.
Disposition
The court ordered the clerk to identify Ellawendy’s filing as a “Proposed Amended Petition,” stayed briefing on the respondent’s earlier answer, directed the respondent to respond to the proposed amendment or state non-opposition, and struck the “Amended Complaint” from the action. The order did not decide whether Ellawendy would prevail on his remaining claim about the voluntariness of his plea.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.