(PC) Reece v. Carey et al, No. 2:2009cv01350 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 7/14/2010 RECOMMENDING that pltf's 18 cmplt be dismissed w/out prejudice. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due w/in 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Reece v. Carey et al Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES G. REECE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. CIV S-09-1350-GEB-CMK-P vs. ORDER TOM L. CAREY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Doc. 19 18). 20 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 21 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 23 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 24 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 25 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “short and plain statement 26 of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 2 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 3 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 4 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege 5 with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 6 claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 7 impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 8 and conclusory. 9 Plaintiff’s first two complaints were dismissed for violation of Rule 8’s 10 requirement that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the claim. A number of other 11 defects were addressed by the court’s prior screening orders, which Plaintiff has attempted to 12 cure in his second amended complaint. However, it is now apparent that Plaintiff’s claims have a 13 fatal flaw. Plaintiff claims his due process rights were violated during a prison disciplinary 14 proceeding. According to his allegations, he was brought up on false charges of theft. The 15 hearing on those false charges were then wrought with violations, including misclassification of 16 the charges, and refusal to allow Plaintiff an investigator. He then alleges his 602 inmate 17 grievance was illegally dismissed, the charges were wrongfully not reversed, and the forms failed 18 to contain all necessary information. Plaintiff clarifies that due to these false charges, for which 19 he was found guilty, he was assessed 40 hours of extra duty, docked 30 days good time, and 30 20 days of yard and phone privileges were taken away. 21 When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks 22 is a determination that he is entitled to an earlier or immediate release, such a challenge is not 23 cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the prisoner’s sole federal remedy is a petition for a writ 24 of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Neal v. Shimoda, 25 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 26 1995) (per curiam). Thus, where a § 1983 action seeking monetary damages or declaratory relief 2 1 alleges constitutional violations which would necessarily imply the invalidity of the prisoner’s 2 underlying conviction or sentence, or the result of a prison disciplinary hearing, such a claim is 3 not cognizable under § 1983 unless the conviction or sentence has first been invalidated on 4 appeal, by habeas petition, or through some similar proceeding. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 5 U.S. 641, 646 (1987) (holding that § 1983 claim not cognizable because allegations of procedural 6 defects and a biased hearing officer implied the invalidity of the underlying prison disciplinary 7 sanction); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-84 (1994) (concluding that § 1983 not 8 cognizable because allegations were akin to malicious prosecution action which includes as an 9 element a finding that the criminal proceeding was concluded in plaintiff’s favor); Butterfield v. 10 Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 1997) (concluding that § 1983 claim not cognizable 11 because allegations of procedural defects were an attempt to challenge substantive result in 12 parole hearing); cf. Neal, 131 F.3d at 824 (concluding that § 1983 claim was cognizable because 13 challenge was to conditions for parole eligibility and not to any particular parole determination). 14 In particular, where the claim involves loss of good-time credits as a result of an adverse prison 15 disciplinary finding, the claim is not cognizable. See Blueford v. Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 255 (9th 16 Cir. 1997). If a § 1983 complaint states claims which sound in habeas, the court should not 17 convert the complaint into a habeas petition. See id.; Trimble, 49 F.3d at 586. Rather, such 18 claims must be dismissed without prejudice and the complaint should proceed on any remaining 19 cognizable § 1983 claims. See Balisok, 520 U.S. at 649; Heck, 512 U.S. at 487; Trimble, 49 20 F.3d at 585. 21 Here, Plaintiff’s claim involves a prison disciplinary proceeding involving the loss 22 of good time. A determination that the proceedings were based on false charges and violated his 23 due process rights would necessarily imply the invalidity of those proceeding which is not 24 cognizable in a § 1983 action. Such claims sound in habeas. Prior to bringing these claims as a 25 § 1983 action, Plaintiff is required to have the disciplinary proceeding invalidated on appeal, by 26 habeas petition, or through some similar proceeding. 3 1 Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be 2 cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of 3 the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 4 5 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 7 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 8 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 9 objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 10 objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 11 See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 13 14 15 DATED: July 14, 2010 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
