Pugh v. Santa Clara County Correction Department

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 4, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-06723
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 DARRYL E. PUGH, T15269, Case No. 21-cv-06723-CRB (PR)

7 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 8 v.

9 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CORRECTION (ECF No. 3) DEPARTMENT, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 I. 12 Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility (CTF) 13 in Soledad, California, has filed a pro se First Amended Complaint (FAC) for damages under 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he was subjected to an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth 15 Amendment after he was arrested and taken to the Santa Clara County Jail back in May 1998. 16 Plaintiff raised the same allegations and claim in a prior prisoner complaint that was dismissed 17 without prejudice under the rationale of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). See Pugh v. 18 Santa Clara Cnty. Corr. Dep’t, No. 00-cv-01391-VRW (PR) (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2002) (order 19 granting motion to dismiss). 20 Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 21 II. 22 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 23 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 24 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 25 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 26 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 27 § 1915A(b). 1 A prisoner complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be 2 considered abusive and dismissed under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Cf. Cato v. United 3 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th 4 Cir. 1988)) (duplicative in forma pauperis complaint may be considered abusive and dismissed 5 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915). That a prisoner adds an additional defendant in his later-filed action 6 does not compel a different result. See Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021 (complaint repeating same 7 allegations asserted in earlier case, even if now filed against new defendants, is subject to 8 dismissal as duplicative). 9 III. 10 The court (Walker, J.) previously dismissed plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment unreasonable 11 search claim under the rationale of Heck. The court explained that plaintiff had been convicted in 12 state court of possession for sale of cocaine base based on the substance seized from plaintiff 13 during the alleged unreasonable search, and that a § 1983 claim for “unreasonable search and 14 seizure of evidence upon which criminal charges are based is barred by Heck until criminal 15 charges have been dismissed or the conviction has been overturned.” Pugh v. Santa Clara Cnty. 16 Corr. Dep’t, No. 00-cv-01391-VRW (PR), slip op. at 4 (citing Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 17 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2000)). Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended unreasonable search claim was barred by 18 Heck because “the validity of his conviction of possession for sale of cocaine base would be 19 implicated” if he is successful in proving his claim “that the force used to carry out the search and 20 obtain the seized evidence was unreasonable.” Id. at 6 (citations omitted). Plaintiff’s claim was 21 dismissed “without prejudice to refiling if plaintiff’s conviction is invalidated.” Id. at 7 (citing 22 Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 649 (1997)). 23 Plaintiff’s instant refiling of his Fourth Amendment unreasonable search claim nearly 20 24 years after it was dismissed under the rationale of Heck is not based on his conviction having been 25 invalidated. Plaintiff instead seeks to relitigate the claim based on his renewed contention (albeit 26 nearly 20 years later) that the claim is not barred by Heck. Plaintiff’s contention is without his 27 merit and his renewed action is deemed duplicative and abusive under § 1915A. Cf. Cato, 70 F.3d 1 IV. 2 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's operative FAC is DISMISSED as duplicative and 3 abusive under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), and his motion for appointment of counsel 4 || (ECF No. 3) is DISMISSED as moot and for lack of merit. 5 IT ISSO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: November 4, 2021 7 a -~— CHARLES R. BREYER 8 United States District Judge 9 10 1] 12

2B

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28