Free USCA Order - District Court of California - California

Case 3:O7—cv-02557-I\/IIVIC Document 16 Filed O3/28/2008 Page 1 of 3
,__ FILED
Il 1 Hf? V *
Nor Fon PIJBL·l_QlAT‘EdNO,, MAR 25 2008
Y//‘l¥—;Q,·‘!lii'· . I `P /S> Mou.v owvER,AcTaNe ci.ERi<
UNITED STATES COURT U·S~ COURT OP APPEALS
4 ·¤ Cf!
A ’C';»"P]`
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ’*/4 L//[
MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, No. 07-16170
Plaintiff- Appellant, D.C. No. CV-07-02557-MMC
v.
MEMoRANDuM`
ROBERT WAGGENER; CORY
STEPHENS; MURLENE JOHNSON;
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding
submitted Match 18, 2008°°
Before: CANBY, T. G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges
Michael B. Williams appeals pro se the dismissal without prejudice,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ l9l5A(b), of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking damages
° This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
” ` The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Case 3:O7—cv-02557-I\/IIVIC Document 16 Filed O3/28/2008 Page 2 of 3
from his defense attorney and other defendants for his confinement on a 1991
conviction. Williams contends that the district court erred in determining that his
claims were barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and,
alternatively, under applicable statutes oflimitations. He also contends that the
district court erred in holding that it lacked authority to construe his complaint as a
coram nobis petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo the dismissal ofa complaint for failure to state a claim under § 1915A(b).
Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm the district
court’s judgment.
Williams claims that his appointed defense attorney committed malpractice
and negligence; the crime victim, the prosecution, and the City and County of San
Francisco violated his constitutional rights in his prosecution; the defendants
conspired to violate his constitutional rights; he was falsely imprisoned; and the
City and County were negligent and committed malicious prosecution and abuse of
process in his 1991 rape conviction. He has finished serving his sentence and is
civilly detained as a sexually violent predator. His federal habeas corpus petition
challenging the rape conviction was filed in 2003 and was dismissed as untimely
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
2

Case 3:O7—cv-02557-I\/IIVIC Document 16 Filed O3/28/2008 Page 3 of 3
Williams contends that the district court erred in determining that his claims
were barred under Heck v. Humphrey, which holds 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 . . ., or called into question by a federal court’s issuance ofa writ of habeas
corpus." 5 l2 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). He argues that the unavailability of habeas
corpus nonetheless allows his suit. We disagree; the unavailability of habeas
corpus is due to Williams’s failure timely to pursue this remedy. See Guerrero v.
Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 704-05 (9th Cir. 2006).
Williams also contends that the district court should have construed his
complaint as a coram nobis petition. We affirm the district court’s holding that it
lacked authority to issue a writ of error coram nobis with respect to a state court
conviction. See United States v. Crowell, 374- F.3d 790, 794 (9th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED.
JN/Inventory 3

Case 3:07-cv-02557-MMC

Document 16

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 1 of 3

Case 3:07-cv-02557-MMC

Document 16

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 2 of 3

Case 3:07-cv-02557-MMC

Document 16

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 3 of 3