Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00681/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00681-1/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

27

28 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN W. ROSE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )

)

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

1:08-cv-00681-LJO-GSA-PC 

 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN THIRTY

(30) DAYS

Plaintiff, Steven W. Rose (“plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint on May 15, 2008.

(Doc. 1.)

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court

must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous

or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any

filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time

if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 1:08-cv-00681-LJO-JLT Document 9 Filed 09/03/08 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

27

28 2

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the

claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984),

citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners

Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must

accept astrue the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees,

425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve

all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

II. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is a state prisoner presently incarcerated at Avenal State Prison in Avenal, California.

The events at issue allegedly occurred during parole hearings at the R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility

and Avenal State Prison while plaintiff was incarcerated at those facilities. Plaintiff names as defendant

the State of California. 

Plaintiff alleges that the State of California adopted an unconstitutional indeterminate sentencing

scheme which had been repealed and as a result, the wrong method of calculation was used for plaintiff’s

eligibility for parole. Plaintiff alleges that he was sentenced on February 14, 1991 under an

indeterminate sentencing law which resulted from a Proposition 7 voter ballot initiative in 1978.

Plaintiff challenges the laws and procedures governing parole hearings for prisoners sentenced under

indeterminate sentencing laws.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, attorney fees and costs. 

III. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

Challenge to Laws and Procedures Governing Parole Hearings

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). “[A] state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) - no

matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state

Case 1:08-cv-00681-LJO-JLT Document 9 Filed 09/03/08 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

27

28

Complaint at page 19, lines 1-7. 1

Complaint at page 17, lines 7-9. 2

3

conduct leading to conviction orinternal prison proceedings) - if success in that action would necessarily

demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-2, 125

S.Ct. 1242, 1248 (2005). 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). 

In the complaint, plaintiff claims he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment under the

Eighth Amendment, discrimination, First Amendment violations, and violations of his due process and

equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and state tort law. He states that he is “challenging the very procedures, standard of reviews,

burden of proof processes and law mandated upon the (State of California) defendantsto govern parole

hearings for indeterminate sentenced prisoners like plaintiff.” Plaintiff seeks money damages for 1

alleged actual harm which he “continue[s] to suffer.” Although plaintiff does not state that he is 2

challenging his conviction, term, or duration of imprisonment, the remedy he seeks raises a

constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release. Before plaintiff can be awarded

money damages due to his alleged harm in this action, a finding must be made that the correct method

to determine parole was not used. Such a finding would necessarily result in re-calculation of plaintiff’s

parole status using a different formula, which could entitle him to an earlier release. Therefore,

plaintiff’s sole federal remedy for challenging the method used to calculate his parole date is a writ of

habeas corpus. 

IV. CONCLUSION

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint does not contain a claim upon which relief may be

granted under section 1983 or state tort laws. The court also finds that the deficiencies in the complaint

are not capable of being cured by amendment, and therefore leave to amend should not be granted. 28

Case 1:08-cv-00681-LJO-JLT Document 9 Filed 09/03/08 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

27

28 4

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, based

on the foregoing analysis, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without

prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section

1983. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with

the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 29, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00681-LJO-JLT Document 9 Filed 09/03/08 Page 4 of 4