(PC) Williams v. People of the State of California, No. 2:2015cv00741 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/25/2015 RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's amended complaint be dismissed; and this case be closed. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID RAY WILLIAMS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. No. 2:15-cv-0741 MCE CKD P FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is proceeding in forma pauperis. On May 18, 2015, plaintiff’s complaint 20 was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is now 21 before the court. The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 22 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 upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 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 (9th 3 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 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 9 which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 10 support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 11 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 12 Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 13 this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital 14 Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 15 most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 16 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 17 In his amended complaint, plaintiff complains about actions taken by law enforcement 18 officials which ultimately resulted in plaintiff being placed in state prison.1 Am. Compl. at 2. As 19 plaintiff was informed in the court’s order dismissing his original complaint, when a state 20 prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks is the determination of his 21 entitlement to an earlier or immediate release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. 22 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Furthermore, a prisoner cannot seek damages in 23 a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action where a judgment in plaintiff’s favor would imply the invalidity of 24 plaintiff’s conviction or sentence. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). For these 25 reasons, plaintiff’s amended complaint should be dismissed. Leave to amend a second time 26 should not be granted as it appears to be futile. 27 28 1 Plaintiff also complains that his parents’ Constitutional rights were violated. However, plaintiff’s parents are not named as plaintiffs in this action. 2 1 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed; and 3 2. This case be closed. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 6 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 7 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 8 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 9 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 10 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 Dated: August 25, 2015 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 will0741.frs 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.