Sperl v. Deukmejian, 79-3810
| Decision Date | 23 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-3810,79-3810 |
| Citation | 642 F.2d 1154 |
| Parties | Timothy SPERL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George DEUKMEJIAN, in his capacity as Attorney General for the State of California; and John Van De Kamp, in his capacity as District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Donald M. Re, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Jan A. Pluim, John H. Larson, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before TANG, SKOPIL and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Sperl sought declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to invalidate his 1974 state criminal convictions because of alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The district court dismissed his claims. Sperl v. Deukmejian, 482 F.Supp. 1026 (C.D.Cal.1980). We affirm.
Sperl's claim under § 2201 was properly dismissed. Declaratory relief is not available in federal court to attack a state criminal conviction, Ruip v. Kentucky, 400 F.2d 871, 872 (6th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 911, 89 S.Ct. 1755, 23 L.Ed.2d 224 (1969); Booker v. Arkansas, 380 F.2d 240, 242 (8th Cir. 1967); Shannon v. Sequeechi, 365 F.2d 827, 829 (10th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 481, 87 S.Ct. 1175, 18 L.Ed.2d 225 (1967). Sperl argues that his complaint should therefore be treated as a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Habeas corpus relief is not appropriate because Sperl was not in custody when he filed his complaint. Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 1559, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 468, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3040, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976).
Sperl's claim under § 1983 was also properly dismissed. Sperl's claim of prosecutorial misconduct was tried and rejected in state habeas corpus proceedings. The doctrine of collateral estoppel therefore precludes reconsideration of the issue in a federal civil rights action, even when federal habeas corpus relief is not available. Allen v. McCurry, --- U.S. ----, ----, 101 S.Ct. 411, 419, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980).
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hauptmann v. Wilentz
...on the nature of the charges against the plaintiff); Sperl v. Deukmejian, 482 F.Supp. 1026, 1028-29 (C.D.Cal.1980), aff'd, 642 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir.1981) (allegedly prejudicial preindictment publicity); Gutierrez v. Vergari, 499 F.Supp. 1040, 1051 (S.D.N.Y.1980) (allegedly false, prejudicial ......
-
Younan v. Caruso
... ... (Burgos v. Hopkins (2d Cir.1994) 14 F.3d 787, 792-793 [applying New York law]; Sperl v. Deukmejian (9th Cir.1981) 642 F.2d 1154, 1155.) ... We see no reason not to ... ...
-
Tenorio v. Murphy
...relief is not available to attack a federal or state conviction. Johnson v. Onion, 761 F.2d 224, 226 (5th Cir.1985); Sperl v. Deukmejian, 642 F.2d 1154, 1155 (9th Cir.1981). Accordingly, Plaintiff's claim is CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Plaintiff's claims are dismissed. SO O......
-
Foster v. Lynn
...rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Hawkins v. Risley, 984 F.2d 321, 323 (9th Cir. 1992) (federal habeas); Sperl v. Deukmejian, 642 F.2d 1154, 1155 (9th Cir. 1981) (state habeas). Thus, a subsequent § 1983 action is barred if the identical claim was raised in a prior § 2254 case. See ......