Mayes v. San Joaquin County Courts

Summary

The court vacates its prior findings and recommendations because the plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint in another case. Screening the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court concludes that the plaintiff's claims concerning 2013 criminal proceedings are barred by the statute of limitations and, to the extent they imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, by Heck v. Humphrey. The magistrate judge recommends dismissal without further leave to amend and closure of the case.

Holdings

1. The amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and should be dismissed under the prisoner-screening statute.
2. Leave to file a second amended complaint should not be granted because amendment appeared futile after the court had already instructed plaintiff how to state a viable claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff's amended prisoner civil-rights complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether claims arising from 2013 criminal proceedings were barred by California's two-year statute of limitations.
3. Whether plaintiff could seek damages under § 1983 for claims implying the invalidity of a criminal conviction or sentence that had not been nullified.
4. Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to file a second amended complaint.

Disposition

other