(PC) Walters v. Mason et al, No. 2:2015cv00822 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 3/10/16 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Walters v. Mason et al Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREW WALTERS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 No. 2:15-CV-0822-KJM-CMK-P vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 DAVID A. MASON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 / Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1). The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 20 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 22 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 23 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 24 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 25 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 26 This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied 2 if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon 3 which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must 4 allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support 5 the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 6 impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 7 and conclusory. 8 9 Plaintiff claims that his criminal conviction is invalid because the trial court judge lacked jurisdiction to impose sentence. When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his 10 custody and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to an earlier or immediate 11 release, such a challenge is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the prisoner’s sole federal 12 remedy is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 13 (1973); see also Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa 14 Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Thus, where a § 1983 action seeking 15 monetary damages or declaratory relief alleges constitutional violations which would necessarily 16 imply the invalidity of the prisoner’s underlying conviction or sentence, or the result of a prison 17 disciplinary hearing resulting in imposition of a sanction affecting the overall length of 18 confinement, such a claim is not cognizable under § 1983 unless the conviction or sentence has 19 first been invalidated on appeal, by habeas petition, or through some similar proceeding. See 20 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-84 (1994) (concluding that § 1983 claim not cognizable 21 because allegations were akin to malicious prosecution action which includes as an element a 22 finding that the criminal proceeding was concluded in plaintiff’s favor); Butterfield v. Bail, 120 23 F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 1997) (concluding that § 1983 claim not cognizable because 24 allegations of procedural defects were an attempt to challenge substantive result in parole 25 hearing); cf. Neal, 131 F.3d at 824 (concluding that § 1983 claim was cognizable because 26 challenge was to conditions for parole eligibility and not to any particular parole determination); 2 1 cf. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (concluding that § 1983 action seeking changes in 2 procedures for determining when an inmate is eligible for parole consideration not barred 3 because changed procedures would hasten future parole consideration and not affect any earlier 4 parole determination under the prior procedures). 5 In this case, success on the merits of plaintiff’s claims that the trial court lacked 6 jurisdiction to impose sentence necessarily implies the invalidity of the sentence. Plaintiff’s 7 claim is, therefore, not cognizable and should be dismissed. 8 9 10 Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 11 12 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 14 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 15 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 16 objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 17 objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 18 See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 20 21 22 DATED: March 10, 2016 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 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.
