Opinion
No. 2:18-CV-3109-TLN-DMC
04-08-2019
KENNETH RAYMOND WARREN, Plaintiff, v. ERIC ARNOLD, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are Plaintiff's first amended complaint (ECF No. 21). It is unclear from Plaintiff's complaint what constitutional violations plaintiff is alleging and which Defendant allegedly violated them. To the extent that Plaintiff asserts any claim it seems to relate to his sentence and not to an alleged constitutional tort. /// /// /// /// /// /// ///
I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT AND STANDARD
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require complaints contain a "... short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences." Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and are afforded the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572F.3d at 969. /// /// /// ///
II. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff's complaint does not state a claim related to an alleged constitutional violation cognizable under section 1983. To the extent that Plaintiff asserts any claim it relates to the calculation of his sentence. Plaintiff challenges the calculation of his sentence and argues that an enhancement was erroneously applied to his sentence
III. ANALYSIS
When a state prisoner disputes the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to an earlier or immediate release, such a challenge is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the prisoner's sole federal remedy is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Thus, where a § 1983 action seeking monetary damages or declaratory relief alleges constitutional violations which would necessarily imply the invalidity of the prisoner's underlying conviction or sentence, or the result of a prison disciplinary hearing resulting in imposition of a sanction affecting the overall length of confinement, such a claim is not cognizable under § 1983 unless the conviction or sentence has first been invalidated on appeal, by habeas petition, or through some similar proceeding. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-84 (1994) (concluding that § 1983 claim not cognizable because allegations were akin to malicious prosecution action which includes as an element a finding that the criminal proceeding was concluded in plaintiff's favor); Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 1997) (concluding that § 1983 claim not cognizable because allegations of procedural defects were an attempt to challenge substantive result in parole hearing); cf. Neal, 131 F.3d at 824 (concluding that § 1983 claim was cognizable because challenge was to conditions for parole eligibility and not to any particular parole determination); cf. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (concluding that § 1983 action seeking changes in procedures for determining when an inmate is eligible for parole consideration not barred because changed procedures would hasten future parole consideration and not affect any earlier parole determination under the prior procedures).
In particular, where the claim involves the loss of good-time credits as a result of an adverse prison disciplinary finding, the claim is not cognizable. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1987) (holding that § 1983 claim not cognizable because allegations of procedural defects and a biased hearing officer implied the invalidity of the underlying prison disciplinary sanction of loss of good-time credits); Blueford v. Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 255 (9th Cir. 1997); cf. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 858 (9th. Cir. 2003) (holding that the favorable termination rule of Heck and Edwards does not apply to challenges to prison disciplinary hearings where the administrative sanction imposed does not affect the overall length of confinement and, thus, does not go to the heart of habeas); see also Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2014) (discussing loss of good-time credits).
The Supreme Court has held that the district courts should avoid recharacterizing a pro se litigant's civil rights claim which sounds in habeas as a habeas claim where doing so would disadvantage the litigant. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 382-83 (2003); see also United States v. Seesing, 234 F.3d 456, 464 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, while the district court may recharacterize a civil rights claims as a habeas claim, before doing so the court must "notify the pro se litigant that it intends to recharacterize the pleading, warn the litigant that this recharacterization means that any subsequent § 2255 motion will be subject to the restrictions on 'second or successive motions, and provide the litigant an opportunity to withdraw the motion or to amend it so that it contains all the § 2255 claims he believes he has." Id. at 383.
Here, to the extent that Plaintiff states a claim for any relief, it relates exclusively to his sentence. Specifically, Plaintiff takes issue with the calculation of his sentence and argues that an enhancement was erroneously applied to his sentence. The complaint is void of any allegations of a constitutional violation for which Plaintiff seeks damages or injunctive relief. For that reason, Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cognizable claim under section 1983. Because Plaintiff's entire claim relates to his sentence, a writ of habeas corpus is his sole federal remedy. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 500 (1973). Further, this Court finds it would be improper to sua sponte recharacterize the complaint as a habeas petition because the complaint is vague and unclear, and because it is uncertain whether such a recharacterization would disadvantage Plaintiff. Thus, this Court recommends Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without leave to amend because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be cured by amending the complaint. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's first amended complaint (ECF No. 21) be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that plaintiff's motion for default judgment (ECF No. 27) be denied.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: April 8, 2019
/s/_________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE