Gilbert Juarez v. Twenty Five Court Officers

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 7 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GILBERTO JUAREZ, No. 13-16669
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-02431-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TWENTY FIVE COURT OFFICERS; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Gilberto Juarez appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of federal law in
connection with the use of purportedly false evidence in his criminal prosecution
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
and the mishandling of legal documents in subsequent proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, and we may affirm on any basis supported by the record.
Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
To the extent that Juarez alleges a claim against federal court clerks for
violation of the Freedom of Information Act, the district court properly dismissed
because “the provisions of the FOIA impose no obligation on the courts to produce
any records in their possession.” Warth v. Dep’t of Justice, 595 F.2d 521, 522 (9th
Cir. 1979).
To the extent that Juarez alleges a claim against federal court clerks for
violation of his due process rights, dismissal was proper because mere negligent
acts by officials do not give rise to constitutional violations, and at most, Juarez
alleged facts showing negligence. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir.
2011) (explaining that “a Bivens action is the federal analog to an action against
state or local officials under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983”); County of Sacramento v. Lewis,
523 U.S. 833, 848-50 (1998) (a negligent act of an official that causes loss of life,
liberty, or property does not state a due process violation).
To the extent that Juarez alleges a claim against “25 court officers” for
violations of his due process rights in connection with his criminal prosecution,
2 13-16669
dismissal was proper because success on the merits of Juarez’s claim would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence enhancement, and
Juarez failed to allege that his conviction or sentence enhancement has been
invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 489 (1994) (precluding
§ 1983 claims which, if successful, “would necessarily imply the invalidity” of an
inmate’s conviction or sentence).
AFFIRMED.
3 13-16669