-DLB (PC) Caranchini v. Schwarzenneggar et al, No. 1:2010cv02389 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of Action 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 6/15/11. Referred to Judge Wanger. Objections Due Within Twenty-One Days. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF

-DLB (PC) Caranchini v. Schwarzenneggar et al Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:10-CV-02389-OWW-DLB PC BENJAMIN CARANCHINI, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION v. (DOC. 1) ARNOLD SCHWARZENNEGGAR, et al., 12 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS Defendants. 13 / 14 15 16 Findings And Recommendations I. Background 17 Plaintiff Benjamin Caranchini (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 18 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this 20 action by filing his complaint on December 27, 2010. Doc. 1. 21 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 22 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 23 Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 24 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 25 that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 27 paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or 28 appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 2 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 3 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 4 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 5 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing 6 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 7 matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 8 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. 9 II. 10 11 Summary Of Complaint Plaintiff is incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff names as Defendants former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and secretary of CDCR Matthew Cate. 12 Plaintiff alleges the following. On January 25, 2010, California Senate bill X3-18 (“SB 13 X3-18") took effect, which altered Plaintiff’s release date from April 11, 2011 to June 28, 2011. 14 Plaintiff had been validated as a prison gang associate. It appears that Plaintiff complains of the 15 loss of his good time credits. Plaintiff contends a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. 16 Plaintiff requests as relief a release date of April 11, 2011, or to be paid $1,000 for each 17 day he is held afterward. Plaintiff also requests reimbursement of costs. 18 III. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Analysis The Court takes judicial notice that the relevant portion of SB X3-18 was codified in California Penal Code section 2933.6. The relevant section states, Notwithstanding any other law, a person who is placed in a Security Housing Unit, Psychiatric Services Unit, Behavioral Management Unit, or an Administrative Segregation Unit for misconduct described in subdivision (b) or upon validation as a prison gang member or associate is ineligible to earn credits pursuant to Section 2933 or 2933.05 during the time he or she is in the Security Housing Unit, Psychiatric Services Unit, Behavioral Management Unit, or the Administrative Segregation Unit for that misconduct. Cal. Penal Code § 2933.6. “[A] state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) - no matter the 27 relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state 28 conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings) - if success in that action would 2 1 necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 2 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005). This principle is known as the favorable termination rule. See Heck v. 3 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-87 (1994). 4 Here, if Plaintiff prevails in his § 1983 suit, it would necessarily affect the duration of his 5 confinement. Thus, Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in this action. Plaintiff’s claim is not 6 cognizable as a matter of law. The Court will thus recommend dismissal of this action without 7 prejudice. Plaintiff should not be granted any leave to amend, as Plaintiff will be unable to cure 8 the deficiencies of his complaint. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 9 IV. Conclusion And Recommendation 10 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that 11 1) 12 This action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the favorable termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); and 13 2) 14 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District The dismissal count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 15 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty- 16 one (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the plaintiff may 17 file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 18 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 19 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 20 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 15, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.