-DAD (PC) Martin v. Walker, et al., No. 2:2011cv00172 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/19/11 RECOMMENDING that 2 MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS be denied; and this action be dismissed without prejudice; 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-DAD (PC) Martin v. Walker, et al. Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 O.Z. MARTIN, 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-11-0172 FCD DAD P vs. JAMES WALKER et al., Defendants. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983 and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 18 This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance with Local Rule 19 302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 21 SCREENING REQUIREMENT The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 22 against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised 24 claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 25 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 2 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 3 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 4 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 5 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 6 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 7 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 8 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and 9 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 10 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 11 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 12 (1957)). However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must 13 contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain 14 factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 15 550 U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the 16 allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 17 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all 18 doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 19 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 20 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 21 22 23 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 24 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 25 Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 26 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the 2 1 meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or 2 omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which 3 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 4 Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the 5 actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named 6 defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed 7 constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 8 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory 9 allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not 10 11 12 sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT In the present case, plaintiff has named Warden Walker, Associate Warden 13 Drummond, N. Grannis, B. Sullivan, D. Lieber, J. Clough, D. Baughman, S. Shannon, J. 14 Mayfield, and D. Cade as the defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the named defendants have 15 repeatedly assigned him to adult basic education at his institution of confinement even though he 16 has earned his GED and college degree. Plaintiff alleges that on three occasions he appeared at 17 his adult basic education class and informed the instructor that he would not be returning because 18 his assignment to the class was unlawful and improper. Each time, the instructor issued plaintiff 19 a prison rules violation report for refusal to attend. At two of his three disciplinary hearings, the 20 senior hearing officer found plaintiff not guilty of the charge in light of the evidence plaintiff 21 presented in his defense. However, at his hearing on Rules Violation Report Log No. C08-12- 22 028, the senior hearing officer found him guilty and assessed him thirty days loss of time credits. 23 Plaintiff claims that the defendants have conspired against him and violated his constitutional 24 rights because their actions have caused him to suffer disciplinary actions, an additional six 25 points to his classification score, and thirty days loss of time credits, which extends his sentence 26 by thirty days. (Compl. Attach. at 7-17.) 3 1 DISCUSSION 2 A civil rights action is the proper mechanism for a prisoner seeking to challenge 3 the conditions of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). In contrast, 4 habeas corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for a prisoner seeking to challenge the fact 5 or duration of his confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Here, plaintiff 6 claims that the defendants’ conduct resulted in his loss of good-time credits. However, plaintiff 7 has not alleged or even suggested that the disciplinary conviction in question has been overturned 8 or otherwise invalidated. 9 Under these circumstances, the court cannot allow plaintiff to proceed in this civil 10 rights action. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants, if established, would necessarily imply the 11 invalidity of his disciplinary conviction for Rules Violation Report Log No. C08-12-028 and the 12 resulting forfeiture of time credits. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (“a state 13 prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) - no matter the relief sought 14 (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to 15 conviction or internal prison proceedings) - if success in that action would necessarily 16 demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.”) (emphasis in original); Heck v. 17 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (a state prisoner may not recover damages under § 1983 for 18 allegedly unconstitutional imprisonment, or for any other harm caused by “actions whose 19 unlawfulness would render the imprisonment invalid,” unless he can prove that the conviction or 20 other basis for confinement has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, 21 declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a determination, or called into 22 question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus). Accordingly, the court will 23 recommend that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice to its re-filing should 24 plaintiff have the challenged disciplinary conviction reversed, expunged, declared invalid or set 25 aside by the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus or otherwise. 26 ///// 4 1 CONCLUSION 2 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 3 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) be denied; and 4 2. This action be dismissed without prejudice. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 6 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 7 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 8 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 9 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 10 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 11 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 DATED: July 19, 2011. 13 14 15 DAD:9 mart0172.56 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 5
]]>
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.
