(PC) Smith v. Ayers et al, No. 1:2008cv01978 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 9/8/2009, Recommending the Dismissal of Action re 19 Amended Complaint. Matter referred to Judge Ishii. (Objections to F&R due by 10/13/2009) (Figueroa, O)

Download PDF
(PC) Smith v. Ayers et al Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 STEVIE J. SMITH, 11 12 13 14 CASE NO. 1:08-CV-01978-AWI-SMS PC Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION v. ROBERT AYERS, JR., et al., (Doc. 19) Defendants. / 15 16 Plaintiff Stevie J. Smith is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. 17 Plaintiff initially brought his grievance to the court in the form of a letter to the United States 18 District Court for the Northern District of California dated September 15, 2008 (doc. 1). The 19 Northern District Court opened a civil rights action, then transferred the action to the Eastern 20 District Court because plaintiff’s complaint related to his confinement at California State Prison21 Corcoran. By Order dated January 5, 2009, this court directed the Court Clerk to provide plaintiff 22 with a form of complaint and plaintiff to file a complaint within thirty days (doc. 9). Plaintiff 23 filed his first amended complaint on January 9, 2009 (doc. 10). Following this court’s issuance of 24 a screening order on April 14, 2009 (Doc. 18), plaintiff submitted a second amended complaint on 25 April 21, 2009 (Doc.19). 26 This court’s review of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, as well as his original letter to 27 the court, left it uncertain whether Plaintiff’s claim was properly categorized as a civil rights 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or whether plaintiff intended to bring a petition for writ of habeas 2 corpus. (As a result, the court directed the clerkto provide plaintiff with the necessary forms to 3 file an amended complaint, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, or both.) Plaintiff has clarified 4 his intentions in his second amended complaint, indicating that he seeks relief that will return him 5 to a “real court” and enable him to get out of prison. Accordingly, plaintiff should have filed a 6 petition for habeas corpus. 7 Challenges to the conditions of prison life are properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 8 McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 142 (1991). A federal petition for writ of habeas corpus 9 concerns whether a petitioner is in custody in violation of the Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 10 “Habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of 11 his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release, even though such a claim may come 12 within the literal terms of § 1983.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-89 (1973). 13 14 Findings and Recommendations Because plaintiff challenges his confinement and seeks release from prison, his action is 15 properly brought through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, an action separate and distinct 16 from this § 1983 complaint. Because amending this § 1983 complaint will not cure the 17 deficiency, the court hereby recommends that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure 18 to state a claim. 19 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 20 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) 21 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 22 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 23 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that, by failing to file objections within the 24 specified time, he may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.Ylst, 951 25 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: icido3 28 September 8, 2009 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

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.