Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05420/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05420-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DON A. WATSON,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 5420 REC WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS,

Defendant.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the original complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in the

custody of the California Department of Corrections at Avenal State Prison, brings this civil

rights action against defendant California Board of Prison Terms.

Plaintiff’s sole claim in this complaint is that defendant Board has failed to apply

Case 1:04-cv-05420-REC-WMW Document 8 Filed 05/27/05 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

statutory sentence reduction credits, thereby reducing plaintiff’s term of imprisonment. Plaintiff

seeks monetary damages for wrongful imprisonment and “a writ of prohibition against

respondents and mandate that they comply to California law.”

When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a

constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a

writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d

874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Moreover, when seeking damages for an

allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, “a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the

conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,

declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into

question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). “A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a

conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.” Id. at

488. 

In Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 644 (1997), the United States Supreme

Court applied the doctrine articulated in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), to prison

disciplinary hearings. In Heck, the Court held that a state prisoner’s claim for damages for

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if a

judgment in favor of plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or

sentence, unless the prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has previously been

invalidated. 512 U.S. at 487. In applying the principle to the facts of Balisok, the Court held

that a claim challenging the procedures used in a prison disciplinary hearing, even if such a

claim seeks money damages and no injunctive relief, is not cognizable under § 1983 if the nature

of the inmate’s allegations are such that, if proven, would necessarily imply the invalidity of the

result of the prison disciplinary hearing. 520 U.S. at 646. Because such a challenge, if

Case 1:04-cv-05420-REC-WMW Document 8 Filed 05/27/05 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

successful, would invalidate the duration of the inmate’s confinement, it is properly brought as a

habeas corpus petition and not under § 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487; Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411

U.S. 475, 500 (1973). The Ninth Circuit has applied the Balisok rule to a case in which a

prisoner sought damages based on allegations that prison officials relied on false information to

find him ineligible for parole. Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 1997). Because the

claim necessarily implied the invalidity of the plaintiff’s continued confinement, it could not

accrue until the conviction or sentence had been invalidated. Id.

Plaintiff may not bring an action for damages until such time as the underlying

sentence has been invalidated. If plaintiff wishes to challenge his conviction and/or custody

duration, he must do so via a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Where the complaint states a

habeas claim instead of a § 1983 claim, the court should dismiss the claim without prejudice for

failure to exhaust, rather than converting it to a habeas and addressing it on the merits. See

Blueford v. Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 255 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d

583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). Where the complaint alleges claims that sound in habeas and claims

that do not, the court should allow the non-habeas claims to proceed. See Ybarra v. Reno

Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 681-82 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Accordingly, any habeas claims should be dismissed. Any claim for damages for

wrongful parole determination do not accrue until such time as the sentence has been

invalidated. The complaint must therefore be dismissed. The court will provide plaintiff with

an opportunity to file an amended complaint that cures the noted defect - an amended complaint

that alleges that the sentence has been invalidated. Should plaintiff fail to do so, the court will

recommend dismissal of this action without prejudice to the filing of a habeas petition.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

Case 1:04-cv-05420-REC-WMW Document 8 Filed 05/27/05 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

first amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "First Amended Complaint"; plaintiff

must file an original and two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended

complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05420-REC-WMW Document 8 Filed 05/27/05 Page 4 of 4