referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)
How later courts described this case
- referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)
- concluding that § 1983 claim not cognizable because allegations were akin to 26 malicious prosecution action which includes as an element a finding that the criminal proceeding 27 was concluded in plaintiff’s favor
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DON ANGELO DAVIS, No. 2:19-CV-0222-WBS-DMC-P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. FINDINGS AND RECCOMMENDATIONS
14 RALPH DIAZ, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 23).
19 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
20 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
21 § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or
22 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
23 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,
24 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain
25 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This
26 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d
27 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the
28 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it
1 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege
2 with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the
3 claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is
4 impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague
5 and conclusory.
6
7 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
8 Plaintiff Don Angelo Davis is an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent
9 City, California. Plaintiff appears to allege that various prison officials are involved in a scheme
10 to miscalculate the duration of his sentence. See ECF No. 23, pg. 5. None of the named
11 defendants are referenced in plaintiff’s allegations.
12
13 II. DISCUSSION
14 When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks
15 is a determination that he is entitled to an earlier or immediate release, such a challenge is not
16 cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the prisoner’s sole federal remedy is a petition for a writ
17 of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Neal v. Shimoda,
18 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir.
19 1995) (per curiam). Thus, where a § 1983 action seeking monetary damages or declaratory relief
20 alleges constitutional violations which would necessarily imply the invalidity of the prisoner’s
21 underlying conviction or sentence, or the result of a prison disciplinary hearing resulting in
22 imposition of a sanction affecting the overall length of confinement, such a claim is not
23 cognizable under § 1983 unless the conviction or sentence has first been invalidated on appeal, by
24 habeas petition, or through some similar proceeding. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-
25 84 (1994) (concluding that § 1983 claim not cognizable because allegations were akin to
26 malicious prosecution action which includes as an element a finding that the criminal proceeding
27 was concluded in plaintiff’s favor); Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 1997)
28 (concluding that § 1983 claim not cognizable because allegations of procedural defects were an
1 attempt to challenge substantive result in parole hearing); cf. Neal, 131 F.3d at 824 (concluding
2 that § 1983 claim was cognizable because challenge was to conditions for parole eligibility and
3 not to any particular parole determination); cf. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005)
4 (concluding that § 1983 action seeking changes in procedures for determining when an inmate is
5 eligible for parole consideration not barred because changed procedures would hasten future
6 parole consideration and not affect any earlier parole determination under the prior procedures).
7 Here, success on plaintiff’s claims relating to miscalculation of his sentence would
8 clearly imply the invalidity of the term currently being imposed. To the extent plaintiff’s sentence
9 has not been invalidated, recalculated, or otherwise overturned, plaintiff’s claims are not
10 cognizable in this civil action.
11 Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his original complaint but has failed to allege
12 facts which establish a § 1983 claim. Plaintiff makes no factual reference to any of the defendants
13 named in the amended complaint, nor does he explain how they are responsible for the
14 deprivation of his rights. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is devoid of facts, filled with legal jargon,
15 and no clearer than his original complaint. Compare ECF No. 1 with ECF No. 23.
16 / / /
17 / / /
18 / / /
19 / / /
20 / / /
21 / / /
22 / / /
23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
1 I. CONCLUSION
2 Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be
3 | cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of
4 | the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
5 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed
6 | inits entirely without further leave to amend for failure to state a claim.
7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
8 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days
9 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
10 | objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
11 | objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See
12 | Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
13
14 | Dated: October 4, 2019 Ssvcqo_
15 DENNIS M. COTA
16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28