# (PC) Harris v. Brown

> District Court, E.D. California · October 11, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10014531

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** October 11, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10014531

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DARREN HARRIS, No. 2:19-cv-0311 KJM CKD P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
14 JERRY BROWN, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
18 1983. On February 27, 2019, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint as the court is required to
19 do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to file an
20 amended complaint. Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on May 16, 2019.
21 Again, the court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
22 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
23 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims
24 that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
25 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
26 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).
27 Plaintiff complains that he has been denied an early parole hearing as provided for in
28 Article 1, Section 32 of California’s Constitution which became law in 2016. This section
1 provides for early parole consideration for persons convicted of “a nonviolent felony offense” that
2 meet other criteria as well. According to plaintiff, he stands convicted of robbery.
3 Section 32(b) directs the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and
4 Rehabilitation to “adopt regulations in furtherance of” the other provisions of section 32. In
5 response to this directive, the Secretary promulgated, among other regulations, Cal. Code Regs.
6 Tit 15 § 3495. In § 3495, subsection(b), “violent felony” is identified as any crime listed in
7 subdivision (c) of section 667.5 of the California Penal Code. “Any Robbery” appears on that
8 list. This being the case, the provisions in Article 1, Section 32 of California’s Constitution
9 granting early consideration for parole do not apply to plaintiff.
10 On page 7 of his amended complaint, plaintiff asserts “[i]n 1988, plaintiff was convicted
11 of a non-violent robbery.” To the extent plaintiff challenges the Secretary’s definition of “violent
12 felony” for purposes of Article I, Section 32, his claim arises under California law1 and this court
13 does not have jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1330 et seq. Plaintiff is free to raise such a claim in a
14 California court. There are no facts in plaintiff’s complaint which amount to a claim arising
15 under federal law.
16 In light of the foregoing, the court will recommend that plaintiff’s amended complaint be
17 dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Leave to amend will not
18 be granted a second time, as that appears futile.
19 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
20 1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
21 relief can be granted; and
22 2. This case be closed.
23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
25 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
26

27 1 In In re Edwards, 26 Cal. App. 5th 1181, 1189 (2d. Dist. 2018) the California Court of Appeal
identifies pricinples of California law applicable in determining whether regulations adopted
28 pursuant to Article I, Section 32 are valid under California law.
1 | withthe court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
2 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
3 | time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th
4 Cir. 1991).
5 | Dated: October 11, 2019 Ay i, /
CAN fu fl. ay
6 CAROLYN K. DELANEY
7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10 | 4
harr0311.14

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10014531. Public record. Not legal advice.