Opinion
Civil No. 99-1700-HA
January 2, 2001
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff has filed an amended pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's Claims 1 and 2 allege that the defendants (including the Governor of Oregon, Oregon's Attorney General, as well as correctional institution personnel and private physicians) violated plaintiff's constitutional rights by treating him with medication for schizophrenia which prevented him from defending against his state-court conviction and sentence for a sex offense. He also alleges that judges and attorneys engaged in conduct which resulted in the denial of a state-court motion for post conviction relief.
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That statute provides that "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). The court finds that Claims 1 and 2 are precluded by Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994), and therefore are frivolous and/or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Heck precludes a section 1983 claim based on actions which would `render a conviction or sentence invalid' where that conviction has not been reversed, expunged or called into question by issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck, in other words, says that if a criminal conviction arising out of the same facts stands and is fundamentally inconsistent with the unlawful behavior for which section 1983 damages are sought, the 1983 action must be dismissed.
Smithart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir. 1996). Both Claims 1 and 2 of the amended complaint are based on actions which, if true, might render plaintiff's conviction and sentence invalid. Plaintiff's allegations also demonstrate that his conviction and sentence have not been reversed or expunged. (See Amended Complaint at §§ 93-95) (alleging that the Oregon appellate courts affirmed the denial of plaintiff's post-conviction motions). Thus, a civil action for damages is barred by Heck, and dismissal of those claims is proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Claims 1 and 2 of plaintiff's amended complaint are dismissed with prejudice as against all defendants. Defendants Rader, Dielman, Karper, Blakely, and Bergland's motions for dismiss, (docs. 107, 110, 111, 113, 115) are denied as moot, because plaintiff's claims against these defendants have been dismissed. For the same reason, Defendant Trudel's motion for summary judgment, (doc. 122), and Defendant Trudel's motion for trial in Pendelton, (doc. 73), are denied as moot.