Sharma v. State of Arizona ( 2019 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 PETER SHARMA, Case No.: 2:18-cv-02087-APG-EJY 4 Plaintiff Order Accepting Report and Recommendation, Overruling Objection, 5 v. and Dismissing Case Without Prejudice 6 STATE OF ARIZONA, [ECF No. 5] 7 Defendant 8 Plaintiff Peter Sharma sues the State of Arizona for what he contends is an unlawful 9 conviction. ECF No. 1-1. He requests that I order the Arizona court to set aside his conviction 10 and award him monetary compensation for four years he spent in prison. Id. at 2. 11 Magistrate Judge Foley recommended that I dismiss the claims against the State of 12 Arizona because a State is not a person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 5. He also 13 recommended that I dismiss the case without prejudice because Sharma seeks compensation for 14 a conviction that has not been reversed, expunged, or otherwise declared invalid. Id. Sharma 15 objects, arguing the merits of his underlying conviction. ECF No. 7. 16 I accept Judge Foley’s recommendation that I dismiss the State of Arizona. A State is not 17 a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 18 U.S. 58, 66, 71 (1989). 19 I deny leave to amend to name a proper defendant because Sharma has not shown his 20 conviction has been invalidated. Under the rule announced in Heck v. Humphrey, if a judgment 21 in the plaintiff’s favor “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . . 22 the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or 23 sentence has already been invalidated.” 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). 1 Sharma’s complaint necessarily challenges his criminal conviction because he contends there was insufficient evidence to support it, he seeks to have it set aside, and he requests compensation for his years of imprisonment. Sharma has not shown that as of this date his 4! criminal conviction has been invalidated. Accordingly, I dismiss Sharma’s complaint without 5|| prejudice to Sharma filing a new complaint should his criminal conviction later be invalidated. 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Foley’s report and 7|| recommendation (ECF No. 5) is accepted, plaintiff Peter Sharma’s objection (ECF No. 7) is overruled, and the complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk of court is instructed to close this case. 10 DATED this 13th day of August, 2019. 11 12 we P. GORDON B UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23