(PC) Garza v. Cates et al, No. 1:2018cv00663 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the instant action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim under 42: 1983; Clerk of Court be Directed to Terminate this action; Office of the Clerk is Directed to randomly assign this action to a District Judge re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint filed by Raul Garza ;new case number is 1:18-cv-00663 LJO-SAB (PC); referred to Judge O'Neill,signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/23/18. Objections to F&R due by 6/18/2018 (Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL GARZA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 B. CATES, et.al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-00663-SAB (PC) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION [ECF No. 1] Plaintiff Raul Garza is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s complaint, filed May 15, 2018. 20 I. 21 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 22 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 23 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 24 Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 25 “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that 26 “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 27 1915(e)(2)(B). 28 1 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 1 2 entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 3 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 4 do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 5 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally 6 participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 7 2002). 8 9 Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 10 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, 11 which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named 12 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 13 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not 14 sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying 15 the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 16 II. 17 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 18 Plaintiff was sentenced to a determinate term of nine years. Plaintiff’s request that he receive 19 50% credit earnings pursuant to Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations section 3042, was 20 denied. Plaintiff’s sentence and enhancement qualify him for day for day credit earnings and 21 Defendants have been negligent in failing to account for such credit. 22 23 Plaintiff requests an injunction ordering the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide day for day credit and punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.00 24 III. 25 DISCUSSION 26 “Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a 27 petition for writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under … 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” 28 Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per curiam). “Challenges to the validity of any 2 1 confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus; requests for 2 relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action.” Id. (internal 3 citation omitted). Federal courts lack habeas jurisdiction over claims by state prisoners that are not 4 within “the core of habeas corpus.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), 5 cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 645 (2017). A prisoner’s claims are within the core of habeas corpus if they 6 challenge the fact or duration of his conviction or sentence. Id. at 934. “[W]hen a prisoner’s claim 7 would not ‘necessarily spell speedier release,’ that claim does not lie at “the core of habeas corpus,’ 8 and may be brought, if at all, under § 1983.” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 534 n.13 (2011) 9 (citing Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)); Nettles, 830 F.3d at 934. Although Plaintiff labels his claim as “retaliation,” based on the actual basis of his claim it is 10 11 clear that he is challenging the duration of his sentence. As such, the proper avenue to seek such relief 12 is by way of habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Plaintiff is advised that the 13 proper venue for challenging the execution of his sentence is the district court containing the 14 sentencing court, while the proper venue to challenge the execution of his sentence is the district court 15 containing the prison in which Petitioner is incarcerated. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Accordingly, to the 16 extent Plaintiff wishes to challenge the duration of his confinement he must file a habeas corpus 17 petition in the district court containing the sentencing court. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint must be 18 dismissed. Although the Court would generally grant Plaintiff leave to amend in light of his pro se 19 status, amendment is futile in this instance because the deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. 20 See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000); Schmier v. U.S. Court of Appeals for the 21 Ninth Circuit, 279 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir. 2002) (recognizing “[f]utility of amendment” as a proper 22 basis for dismissal without leave to amend); see also Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 23 (9th Cir. 1995) (a civil rights complaint seeking habeas relief should be dismissed without prejudice to 24 filing as a petition for writ of habeas corpus). 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 3 1 IV. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS 3 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. 5 The instant action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 6 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to terminate this action; and 7 3. The Office of the Clerk is directed to randomly assign this action to a District 8 Judge. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 9 10 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) 11 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 12 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 13 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 14 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838- 15 39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: 19 May 23, 2018 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
