# (PC) Foster v. Carrol > District Court, E.D. California · October 24, 2019 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10014744 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** October 24, 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/10014744 ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10014744. Public record. Not legal advice.