# Bibbs v. Macay > District Court, N.D. California · July 5, 2023 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10075659 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** July 5, 2023 - **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/10075659 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 MARTIN J. BIBBS, H03951, Case No. 23-cv-03023-CRB (PR) 7 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 8 v. 9 E. MACAY, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility 12 in San Diego (RJD) and a frequent litigant in federal court, has filed a pro se complaint under 42 13 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that in 2022, while he was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison 14 (SVSP), he was denied due process in connection with a rules violation report (RVR) for 15 possession of a cellular telephone for which he was found guilty and assessed 90 days loss of good 16 time credits. Plaintiff specifically alleges that failure to provide him a copy of the incident report 17 before the disciplinary hearing denied him a fair opportunity to put on a defense at the hearing. 18 Plaintiff seeks reversal of the RVR guilty finding and restoration of the 90 days loss of 19 good time credits, and compensatory and punitive damages. 20 DISCUSSION 21 A. Standard of Review 22 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 23 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 24 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 25 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 26 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 27 § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 1 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 2 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 3 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 4 42, 48 (1988). 5 B. Legal Claims 6 “‘Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a 7 petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 8 Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or 9 to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus.’” Hill v. McDonough, 547 10 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (quoting Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)). “An inmate’s 11 challenge to the circumstances of his confinement, however, may be brought under § 1983.” Id. 12 Habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “‘immediate or speedier 13 release’” from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 533-34 (2011) (quoting Wilkinson 14 v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)). “Where the prisoner’s claim would not ‘necessarily spell 15 speedier release,’ however, suit may be brought under § 1983.’” Skinner, 562 U.S. at 533-34 16 (quoting Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82). In fact, an action under § 1983 is the exclusive remedy for 17 claims by state prisoners that do not “lie at the ‘core of habeas corpus.’” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 18 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487 (1973)). 19 A claim that meets the statutory criteria of § 1983 may be asserted unless it is within the core of 20 habeas corpus because “its success would release the claimant from confinement or shorten its 21 duration.” Thornton v. Brown, 757 F.3d 834, 841 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500). 22 Here, plaintiff’s challenge to the 2022 RVR guilty finding for possession of a cellular 23 telephone that resulted in the assessment of 90 days loss of good time credits must be brought in 24 habeas because reversal of the RVR guilty finding and reinstatement of the 90 days of good time 25 credits would necessarily spell speedier release from state custody. See Skinner, 561 U.S. at 525 26 (challenge to disciplinary finding that resulted in assessment of time credits must be brought in 27 habeas if reinstatement of time credits would necessarily spell speedier release); see also ] claimant’s confinement). Plaintiff's challenge to the 2022 RVR guilty finding is also barred under 2 || the rationale of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 3 In Heck v. Humphrey, the Supreme Court held that to recover damages for an allegedly 4 || unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose 5 || unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the 6 || conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared 7 || invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a 8 federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. 512 U.S. at 486-487. A claim for damages 9 || bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not 10 || cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487. 11 Heck bars a claim of unconstitutional deprivation of time credits because such a claim 12 || necessarily calls into question the lawfulness of the plaintiff's continuing confinement, 1.e., it 13 implicates the duration of the plaintiff's sentence. See Sheldon v. Hundley, 83 F.3d 231, 233 (8th 14 || Cir. 1996). Heck also bars a claim for denial of proper Wolffv. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), 3 || procedures in connection with a disciplinary hearing that resulted in the deprivation of time credits 16 || if, as is the case here, “the nature of the challenge to the procedures [is] such as necessarily to i 17 || imply the invalidity of the judgment.” Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645 (1997). 18 CONCLUSION 19 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for 20 || failure to state a claim under § 1983 upon which relief may be granted. But the dismissal is 21 without prejudice to plaintiff filing a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after exhausting state 22 || judicial remedies or to filing a civil rights complaint for damages under § 1983 after invalidating 23 || the 2022 RVR guilty finding for possession of a cellular telephone that resulted in the loss of 90 24 || days of good time credits. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: July 5, 2023 27 Lo K Yo CHARLES R. BREYER 28 United States District Judge --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10075659. Public record. Not legal advice.