Don Valles v. United States of America

Background

Andrew Don Valles, III, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the United States, California, and Utah. He was incarcerated at the California Institute for Men. He challenged the constitutionality of sex-offender registration requirements and resulting restrictions, including requirements to provide personal data such as telephone numbers, email addresses, internet identifiers, vehicle information, biometric information, and employment information. He asserted claims under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments and sought reversal of his convictions, permanent exclusion from sex-offender registration, and money damages.

The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. The Prison Litigation Reform Act required the court to screen his complaint and dismiss it, or any part of it, if it was frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or otherwise fell within a basis for dismissal.

Claims Against California and Utah

The court treated the claims against state officials as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a damages remedy for certain violations of federal rights by persons acting under state authority. It dismissed the claims against California and Utah under the Eleventh Amendment’s immunity doctrine. The court explained that states generally cannot be sued in federal court without a waiver of immunity or a congressional abrogation of that immunity, and that Congress had not removed California’s or Utah’s immunity for these § 1983 claims. It also described the claims as frivolous and as seeking money damages from defendants immune from that relief.

Claims Against the United States

The court explained that sovereign immunity generally bars suits against the federal government unless the government has waived that immunity. The Federal Tort Claims Act provides a limited waiver for certain tort claims, but requires a claimant to first present an administrative claim and receive a final written decision. The court found no indication that Valles had completed that process. It therefore dismissed the claims against the United States as barred by sovereign immunity.

Claims Affecting the Convictions

The court applied Heck v. Humphrey, which generally prevents a civil-rights plaintiff from obtaining damages for conduct that would necessarily show that an existing conviction or sentence is invalid, unless the conviction or sentence has already been overturned or otherwise invalidated. Because Valles’s convictions had not been shown to have been invalidated, the court dismissed his claim for damages for failure to state a claim.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court declined to give Valles permission to amend the complaint because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. Judge Louis L. Stanton directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Valles and dismissed the complaint under the cited prisoner-screening provisions. The order itself does not expressly say that the dismissal was with prejudice or without prejudice, although it quotes a prior decision discussing dismissal without prejudice for claims barred by Heck. The court did not decide the underlying constitutionality of the sex-offender registry restrictions.