(PC) Calderon v. Bonta et al, No. 2:2023cv01065 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 12/4/2023 DENYING all pending 10 , 12 , 13 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 motions as moot and without prejudice, and RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Referred to Judge Daniel J. Calabretta; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF

(PC) Calderon v. Bonta et al Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN CARLOS CALDERON, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. No. 2:23-CV-1065-DJC-DMC-P ORDER and ROB BONTA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 17 18 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 original complaint, ECF No. 1. 19 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). This 26 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 27 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 28 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege 2 with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 3 claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 4 impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 5 and conclusory. 6 7 8 9 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff names California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Mule Creek State Prison Warden P. Covello as defendants to this action. See ECF No. 1, pg. 2. While Plaintiff’s 10 complaint is not entirely clear, what is apparent is that Plaintiff is challenging the validity of a 11 1992 criminal conviction. For example, Plaintiff states that he was convicted of second-degree 12 murder and denied a “lesser degree of guilt/punishment” due to, among other things, faulty jury 13 instructions. Id. at 3. Plaintiff further states that he was arrested an “unlawfully interrogated” and 14 that “illegal confessions. . . served as basis for judgment of conviction.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff further 15 states that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. See id. Next, Plaintiff alleges that 16 his criminal conviction is unlawful and unconstitutional. See id. at 5. Finally, Plaintiff asks the 17 Court for relief in the form of, among other things, his release from prison. See id. at 25. 18 19 20 21 22 II. DISCUSSION The Court finds that Plaintiff’s action, which relates to the fact and duration of confinement and not the conditions of confinement, is barred. When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks 23 is a determination that he is entitled to an earlier or immediate release, such a challenge is not 24 cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the prisoner’s sole federal remedy is a petition for a writ 25 of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Neal v. Shimoda, 26 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 27 1995) (per curiam). Thus, where a § 1983 action seeking monetary damages or declaratory relief 28 alleges constitutional violations which would necessarily imply the invalidity of the prisoner’s 2 1 underlying conviction or sentence, or the result of a prison disciplinary hearing resulting in 2 imposition of a sanction affecting the overall length of confinement, such a claim is not 3 cognizable under § 1983 unless the conviction or sentence has first been invalidated on appeal, by 4 habeas petition, or through some similar proceeding. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483- 5 84 (1994) (concluding that § 1983 claim not cognizable because allegations were akin to 6 malicious prosecution action which includes as an element a finding that the criminal proceeding 7 was concluded in plaintiff’s favor). 8 9 Here, Plaintiff is challenging a criminal conviction and seeking release. Success on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims would thus necessarily imply the invalidity of Plaintiff’s 10 criminal conviction. Further, based on the allegations in the complaint and numerous pending 11 motions filed by Plaintiff seeking relief from his criminal conviction, see ECF Nos. 10, 12, 13, 12 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, it is clear that Plaintiff’s criminal conviction has not been set aside of 13 invalidated. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s action is Heck-barred. 14 15 16 III. CONCLUSION Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be 17 cured by amending the complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of 18 the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 19 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned orders and recommends as follows: 20 1. 21 22 It is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. It is hereby ORDERED that all pending motions, ECF Nos. 10, 12, 13, 16, 23 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, be DENIED as moot and without prejudice to renewal should these 24 findings and recommendations not be adopted. 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 26 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 27 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 28 objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 3 1 objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 2 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 4 Dated: December 4, 2023 ____________________________________ DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 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.