Johnson v. Superior Court of California, No. 1:2016cv01096 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: Findings and Recommendations regarding Plaintiff's re 1 complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/31/2016. Matter referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R due by 12/5/2016. (Dean, J)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRACY JOHNSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, 16 Case No. 1:16-cv-01096-DAD-EPG FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS (ECF No. 1) Defendant. 17 Plaintiff Tracy Johnson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Complaint on 18 19 July 28, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against San 20 Joaquin County Superior Court. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he was sentenced unfairly by the court 21 and should be released and awarded $1 million at the time of his release. The Court has screened 22 the Complaint and makes its recommendations herein, namely, that Plaintiff’s Complaint be 23 dismissed without leave to amend. 24 25 I. LEGAL STANDARD Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct a review of an in forma pauperis 26 complaint to determine whether it “state[s] a claim on which relief may be granted,” is “frivolous 27 or malicious,” or “seek[s] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” If 28 the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, it must be dismissed. Id. Leave to 1 1 amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by 2 amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 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, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set 8 forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” 9 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations 10 are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 678. 11 In determining whether a complaint states an actionable claim, the Court must accept the 12 allegations in the complaint as true, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740 13 (1976), construe pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. 14 Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins 15 v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less 16 stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 17 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after 18 Iqbal). 19 II. 20 PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Deuel Vocational Institution in Tracy, California. The 21 Complaint alleges that on March 30, 2016, Plaintiff was sentenced to two years in prison by 22 Defendant for stealing money out of a church offering basket. He asks for relief in the form of an 23 order releasing him from prison, as well as $1 million to be given to him when he leaves the 24 prison. 25 III. 26 DISCUSSION Plaintiff’s claim constitutes a challenge to the fact or duration of his confinement. As a 27 result, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus and a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is 28 inappropriate. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 479 (1973) (“Release from penal custody is 2 1 not an available remedy under the Civil Rights Act”); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874, 875 (9th 2 Cir. 1989) (“Where a state prisoner challenges the fact or duration of his confinement, his sole 3 federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”). Moreover, a § 1983 claim is barred where a judgment in favor of a plaintiff “would 4 5 necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.” Lockett v. Ericson, 656 F.3d 892, 6 896 (9th Cir. 2011), quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) (“in order to recover 7 damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by 8 actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must 9 prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive 10 order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into 11 question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.”). Plaintiff explicitly requests 12 relief invalidating his conviction and requiring his release. Plaintiff has not, however, 13 demonstrated that his conviction has already been reversed, expunged, or otherwise called into 14 question. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims are not cognizable and must be dismissed. Heck, 512 U.S. at 15 487 (“A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been 16 so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.”). 17 Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is appropriate where any 18 opportunity to amend the complaint would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th 19 Cir. 2000) (“a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading 20 was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of 21 other facts.”). No additional facts could cure the deficiencies in the Complaint. The problem is 22 not that it is missing important facts; it is that the requested relief is simply unavailable through a 23 § 1983 lawsuit. Dismissal without leave to amend is thus appropriate. 24 IV. RECOMMENDATION 25 For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the Complaint fails to state a claim 26 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Complaint be 27 DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 28 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 3 1 assigned to this case pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code section 2 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, 3 the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned 4 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that 5 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 6 Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 7 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 31, 2016 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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.