Opinion
2:19-cv-0851 DAD DB P
07-20-2024
JONATHAN ANDREW HAMPTON, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIF., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff alleges multiple constitutional and state law violations by multiple defendants regarding his 2009 criminal trial. Plaintiff was convicted of second degree murder in 2009 for the 2007 killing of Jonathan Giurbino. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive and declaratory relief.
On May 6, 2020, the district court ruled that plaintiff's claims challenging his 2009 conviction were barred because they were not cognizable in a 1983 action and his claims for damages based on that conviction were barred by the favorable termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). (ECF Nos. 25, 38.) Plaintiff sought relief from judgement and moved to amend his first amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 40, 41, 42.) Because plaintiff demonstrated that the California Court of Appeal vacated his 2009 conviction1, the court 1 Plaintiff attached a copy of the Court of Appeal's decision to his motion for relief from judgment. (ECF No. 40.) granted plaintiff's motions and reopened this case. (ECF Nos. 45, 47.) Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a), this court will screen the second amended complaint (ECF No. 42).
Plaintiff filed the second amended complaint in May 2020. He raises multiple challenges to the actions of judges, attorneys, and sheriff's department employees, among others, regarding his 2009 trial. In May 2020 when he filed the second amended complaint, plaintiff's 2009 conviction had just been overturned by the California Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in failing to sua sponte instruct the jury on heat of passion voluntary manslaughter. (ECF No. 40 at 26-30.) The Court of Appeal remanded the case to the superior court to permit the prosecution the opportunity to retry plaintiff within the time permitted by state law. (Id. at 30.)
In 2022, the California Court of Appeal issued an opinion affirming a 2021 judgment of conviction for involuntary manslaughter on the same facts underlying the 2009 conviction. People v. Hampton, No. C093690, 2022 WL 1314829, at *1 (Cal.Ct.App. May 3, 2022). Apparently, then, the prosecution chose to retry plaintiff for the 2007 killing of Jonathan Giurbino.
Based on plaintiff's retrial and conviction, some claims raised in his second amended complaint may no longer be actionable under Heck. The Ninth Circuit considered a situation like the present one in Jackson v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 755 (9th Cir. 2014). In that section 1983 case, the plaintiff sought damages related to a murder conviction that was overturned for Miranda violations. Like this case, the plaintiff was later convicted on retrial. The illegally obtained evidence was not introduced at the second trial. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff's civil rights action was not barred by Heck because the plaintiff's civil rights claims were based on the Miranda violations. Therefore, a favorable decision on those section 1983 claims would not affect the validity of the second conviction.
Based on plaintiff's retrial and conviction in the present case, plaintiff may only pursue claims in this section 1983 action that would not, should he succeed, affect the validity of the second conviction rendered in 2021. Based on the changed circumstances since plaintiff filed his second amended complaint in 2020, this court finds the best course is to permit plaintiff to inform the court whether he wishes to proceed on his second amended complaint or whether he wishes to file a third amended complaint.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a statement informing the court whether he wishes to proceed on his second amended complaint or whether he wishes to file a third amended complaint.