Opinion
No. C 01-1489 MMC (PR)
June 6, 2001
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated in San Quentin State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Sheriff of San Francisco County. Plaintiff alleges that the Sheriff or his agents kept him locked up in a holding cell during his preliminary hearing so that he was unable to attend it. Petitioner also alleges that the Sheriff or his agents brought him into the courtroom in incriminating shackles during the course of his trial. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
In order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or term of imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal courts issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. See Heck v. Huinphre , 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages based upon a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. See id. at 487.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants kept him from attending his preliminary hearing and exposed him to the jury and prosecution witnesses in "incriminating" shackles. To succeed on these claims under § 1983, plaintiff must establish that these actions violated his constitutional rights. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). To the extent plaintiff can establish that the these actions violated his constitutional rights, he would call into question the validity of his conviction and sentence. See e.g., Rushen_vZSpain, 464 U.S. 114, 117 (1983) (holding that right to personal presence at critical stages of criminal proceedings is a defendant's fundamental constitutional right the violation of which renders the conviction invalid); Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 343-44 (1970) (providing that shackles placed on defendant during trial may violate his constitutional rights, and if so, render the conviction invalid); Rhoden v. Rowland, 172 F.3d 633, 636 (9th Cir. 1999) (same). Accordingly, this action is barred by Heck until plaintiff first overturns the sentence or conviction either on direct review or by way of a writ of habeas corpus after he has fully exhausted his state court remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c).
A civil rights complaint seeking habeas relief should be dismissed without prejudice to bringing it as a petition for writ of habeas corpus once all state remedies have been exhausted. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Calderon v. Ashmus, 118 5 Ct 1694, 1699 (1998) (holding claims attacking the validity or duration of confinement must be brought under the federal habeas provisions). Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. All pending motions are TERMINATED. The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.