The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RONALD FOSTER, Case No. 1:19-cv-01474-SAB (PC)
12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSING
13 v. COMPLAINT AS NOT COGNIZABLE
UNDER SECTION 1983
14 L. CARROL, et al.,
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE
15 Defendants. COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN
DISTRICT JUDGE
16
(ECF No. 1)
17
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY
18 DAYS
19
Ronald Foster (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in
20
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s
21
complaint, filed on October 17, 2019.
22
I.
23
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
24
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
25
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
26
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are
27
legally “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or
1 that “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §
2 1915(e)(2)(B).
3 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
4 pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
5 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
6 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
7 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate
8 that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v.
9 Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).
10 Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings
11 liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d
12 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be
13 facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer
14 that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss
15 v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant
16 has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s
17 liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572
18 F.3d at 969.
19 II.
20 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS
21 The Court accepts Plaintiff's allegations in the complaint as true only for the purpose of
22 the sua sponte screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
23 Plaintiff is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
24 and is housed at California State Prison, Corcoran. Plaintiff brings this action against
25 Defendants L. Carrol, S. Babb, J. Ceballos, C. Brown, M Kimbrell, and K. Field alleging
26 violation of his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
27 Plaintiff is a participant in the MHSDS at the enhanced outpatient level of care. Due to
1 credits as well as other credits. Defendants Carrol and Babb refused to follow the mandatory
2 language of Title 15 by refusing to properly classify Plaintiff and award him good time credits.
3 Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance that was denied by Defendants Ceballos, Brown, Kimbrell,
4 and Field. The appeal was denied incorrectly stating that Level VI inmates do not qualify for
5 work group M. Plaintiff contends that Title 15 clearly states that enhanced outpatient inmates
6 are qualified for work group M and that he should have been released from custody ten days
7 after being so designated. He is seeking monetary damages.
8 III.
9 DISCUSSION
10 It has long been established that state prisoners cannot challenge the fact or duration of
11 their confinement in a section 1983 action and their sole remedy lies in habeas corpus relief.
12 Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005). Often referred to as the favorable termination rule
13 or the Heck bar, this exception to section 1983’s otherwise broad scope applies whenever state
14 prisoners “seek to invalidate the duration of their confinement-either directly through an
15 injunction compelling speedier release or indirectly through a judicial determination that
16 necessarily implies the unlawfulness of the State’s custody.” Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81; Heck v.
17 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 482, 486-487 (1994); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 644 (1997).
18 Thus, “a state prisoner’s [section] 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation)-no matter the
19 relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state
20 conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)-if success in that action would
21 necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at
22 81-82.
23 The gravamen of Plaintiff’s complaint is that he is entitled to receive time credits which
24 he is not receiving and, had he received such credits, he should have been released from custody.
25 Plaintiff success in this action would necessarily imply the invalidity of his deprivation of time
26 credits. Edwards, 520 U.S. at 646. Even though Plaintiff is seeking damages in this action, if he
27 were to obtain a judgment in his favor it would affect the length of his sentence. Plaintiff cannot
1 | were to prevail it would imply the invalidity of his sentence. Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872,
2 | 875 (9th Cir. 2002). Therefore, Plaintiff's sole remedy for the denial of time credits is in habeas
3 | corpus and not under section 1983. Nonnette, 316 F.3d at 875. The Court finds that Plaintiff's
4 complaint is not cognizable under section 1983. Edwards, 520 U.S. at 648. Therefore, it is
5 | recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed and this action be closed.
6 IV.
7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8 For the reasons discussed, Plaintiff's sole remedy for the claims raised in this action is in
9 | habeas corpus. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's complaint be
10 | DISMISSED as not cognizable under section 1983, and this action be closed.
11 The Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a district judge to his
12 | matter.
13 This findings and recommendations is submitted to the district judge assigned to this
14 | action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within thirty (30)
15 | days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to this findings and
16 | recommendations with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
17 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge will review the
18 | magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
19 | Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the
20 | waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing
21 | Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
22
73 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. nf ee
24 | Dated: _ October 23, 2019 __ Of
0s UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28