The opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4 GREGORY BROWN, Case No. 25-cv-06667-WHO (PR)
Plaintiff,
5
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
6
7 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
8
Defendants.
9
10 INTRODUCTION
11 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994), bars claims brought under 42
12 U.S.C. § 1983 that, if successful, would appear to invalidate a conviction or sentence that
13 has not already been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared
14 invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question
15 by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Here, plaintiff Gregory Brown
16 brings suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several state actors for allegedly violating his
17 federal constitutional rights in securing his criminal convictions and challenging his
18 resentencing petitions. Brown is incarcerated and his complaint does not indicate that his
19 conviction or sentence has been invalidated or reversed. As a result, Heck precludes his
20 federal civil rights action. This action is DISMISSED.
21 BACKGROUND
22 Brown, a California state prisoner, is serving a sentence of 56 years to life for his
23 1995 state convictions for conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder. People v.
24 Brown, No. A157170, 2020 WL 6482333 at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2020). His appeals
25 and petitions for resentencing have been denied. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 1-9.) He now
26 brings suit against the City and County of San Francisco, Floyd Andrews, an assistant
27 district attorney, Allison Macbeth, an assistant district attorney, Alex Berstein, an assistant
1 attorney, Claudia Phillips, a deputy attorney general, Brooke Jenkins, district attorney of
2 San Francisco, and Rob Bonta, the Attorney General of California, for allegedly violating
3 his federal constitutional rights in securing his 1995 criminal convictions and for opposing
4 his attempts to have his convictions and sentence overturned or reduced.
5 DISCUSSION
6 A. Standard of Review
7 In its initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must dismiss any claim that
8 is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks
9 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.
10 § 1915(e). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
11 Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
12 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
13 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
14 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial
15 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
16 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting
17 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal
18 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably
19 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55
20 (9th Cir. 1994).
21 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
22 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
23 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the
24 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
25 B. Legal Claims
26 In order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
27 imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a
1 || or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared
2 || invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question
3 || by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-487. A
4 || claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so
5 || invalidated is not cognizable under section 1983. Id. at 487.
6 Accordingly, where a state prisoner seeks damages in a section 1983 suit, the
7 || district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily
8 || imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. If it would, the complaint must be
9 || dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has been
10 || invalidated. Jd. at 487.
11 In this case, a judgment that defendants violated Brown’s constitutional rights in
2 connection with his convictions and sentence would necessarily imply the invalidity of his
5 13 || conviction or sentence. Because it is not clear from the complaint that his convictions
S 14 || have not been invalidated in any of the ways specified in Heck, this section 1983 action is
3 15 || barred by Heck. As a result, the action will be dismissed.
a 16 CONCLUSION
3 17 This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in
18 favor of defendants, and close the file.
19 The filing fee has been paid. (Dkt. No. 6.)
20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
21 || Dated: December 9, 2025 “VQe
22 Yo .
LLIAM H. ORRICK
23 United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28