Weilburg v. Shapiro

• Decision Date: 01 June 2007
• Docket Number: No. 05-15540.,05-15540.
• Citation: 488 F.3d 1202
• Parties: Daro WEILBURG; and Maria Weilburg, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. David SHAPIRO, Deputy County Attorney; Arthur Markham, Justice of the Peace; John Doe, Sheriff of Yavapai County; John Doe's A-Z, Yavapai County Jail; and the State of Arizona, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

488 F.3d 1202

Daro WEILBURG; and Maria Weilburg, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. David SHAPIRO, Deputy County Attorney; Arthur Markham, Justice of the Peace; John Doe, Sheriff of Yavapai County; John Doe's A-Z, Yavapai County Jail; and the State of Arizona, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-15540.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 16, 2007.^*

Filed June 1, 2007.

The plaintiffs-appellants, Daro Weilburg and Maria Weilburg, proceeding pro se.

Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ; and Daniel P. Schaack, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for defendant-appellee the State of Arizona.

Randall H. Warner, Phoenix, AZ, for defendants-appellees David Shapiro, Arthur Markham, and the Yavapai County Sheriff.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV 05-0048-PGR-DKD.

Before: RONALD M. GOULD and JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ALFRED V. COVELLO,^** District Judge.

COVELLO, District Judge.

This is an appeal of the district court's sua sponte dismissal of an action for damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("section 1983").¹ The pro se plaintiffs, Daro Weilburg and Maria Weilburg ("Weilburgs"), allege that the State of Arizona and various officials in Yavapai County, Arizona, extradited Daro Weilburg from Arizona to Illinois in violation of state and federal statutes, thereby violating Daro Weilburg's right to procedural due process.

The issue presented is whether the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), bars prospective plaintiffs, who have not otherwise successfully challenged their underlying convictions, from bringing section 1983 actions that are based upon a violation of extradition law.

For the reasons set forth hereinafter, we vacate the judgment of the district court, and order the case remanded to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. FACTS

Unless otherwise indicated, an examination of the complaint, as well as the exhibits attached thereto, discloses the following.

In 1999, an Illinois state court convicted the plaintiff, Daro Weilburg, of felony theft. Weilburg failed to appear at his sentencing hearing. The court sentenced him, in absentia, to a term of imprisonment of seven years. Subsequently, an Illinois grand jury indicted Weilburg for violating a bail bond, also a felony. On the basis of this indictment, authorities issued an arrest warrant for Weilburg.

On June 26, 2003, during a traffic stop in Arizona, police officers arrested Weilburg pursuant to that outstanding warrant. After a series of extradition proceedings in Arizona superior court, authorities returned Weilburg to Illinois.

On January 4, 2005, Weilburg and his wife, Maria Weilburg, proceeding pro se, filed an action for damages in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint alleges numerous irregularities in connection with the procedures pursuant to which authorities extradited Daro Weilburg to Illinois.²

On February 14, 2005, before the defendants appeared in this case, the district court dismissed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.³ The court concluded that the "Plaintiff's claims are based upon a belief that Mr. Weilburg was wrongfully arrested, extradited and incarcerated to serve his sentence for theft and to be prosecuted for the bond violation" and as such, the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Relying on Heck v. Humphrey, the district court held that in order to bring a section 1983 action alleging unlawful conviction or imprisonment, a "plaintiff must prove the [original underlying] conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal . . . , or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." The district court concluded that because the Weilburgs "have not done so, their § 1983 action is premature."

On February 25, 2005, the Weilburgs moved for reconsideration of the order of dismissal. They asserted that the district court's reliance on Heck v. Humphrey was misplaced, as they had "not sought damages for an unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment." Rather, they argued that the "gist of the plaintiffs' complaint hinges on violations of procedural due process protected by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act," Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-3841 et seq., and the federal extradition procedures statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3182. On March 9, 2005, the district court denied the motion for reconsideration, maintaining that "this type of challenge concerns the legality of [Daro Weilburg's] detention and must initially be brought in habeas corpus after exhausting available state court remedies."

On March 21, 2005, the Weilburgs filed their notice of appeal of the district court's dismissal of this action.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We "review[ ] de novo a district court's dismissal of a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). In reviewing a dismissal for failure to state a claim, the court accepts all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Oki Semiconductor Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank, 298 F.3d 768, 772 (9th Cir.2002). Pro se complaints are to be construed liberally and "may be dismissed for failure to state a claim only where `it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228, 1230 (9th Cir.1984) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)). "Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment." Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir.1988) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

The Weilburgs argue that because their cause of action alleges violations of extradition procedures, this case is not barred by the Supreme Court's holding in Heck v. Humphrey. Specifically, "[t]he appellant-plaintiffs do not seek damages for reaching the wrong results regarding conviction and sentence, they seek damages for refusal by the appellee-defendants to follow procedures."

The defendants initially did not respond, presumably because none of them had previously appeared in this action. In response to this court's order to file a brief, however, the State of Arizona filed a two-page letter brief that did not address the applicability of Heck v. Humphrey to the present case, but rather asserted various defenses that the district court did not address below. David Shapiro, Arthur Markham, and the Yavapai County Sheriff, also defendants in this case, likewise filed a letter brief, raising defenses not considered below. They do, however, address the applicability of Heck, largely echoing the reasoning of the district court, and contend generally that those cases that have held that Heck is inapplicable in this context are "inconsistent with Ninth Circuit precedent."

In Heck v. Humphrey, in a challenge to the validity to his underlying conviction, a prisoner initiated a section 1983 action, alleging that the defendants, police officers and prosecutors, employed improper investigative techniques, destroyed evidence, and used unlawful identification procedures, resulting in the prisoner's conviction and imprisonment. Heck, 512 U.S. at 478-79, 114 S.Ct. 2364. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the action, and held that

in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Id. at 490, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (internal footnotes omitted) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court directed that "when a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence." Id. at 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364. "[I]f the district court determines that the plaintiff's action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other bar to the suit." Id. (internal footnotes omitted).

We conclude that Heck v. Humphrey is not a bar to the present action. By the very specific language contained therein, Heck v. Humphrey applies only to those cases in which a complaint alleges that a defendant engaged in conduct "whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid." Id. at 486, 114 S.Ct. 2364. The holding in Heck applies only where "a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence." Id. at 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364.

Here, the gravamen of the complaint is that the defendants returned Weilburg to Illinois in violation of state and federal law, by ignoring established extradition procedures and effectively kidnapping Weilburg. Such allegations, if proven, would not invalidate Weilburg's incarceration in Illinois. To the contrary, "[t]here is nothing in the Constitution that requires a court to permit a guilty person...