Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00812/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00812-0/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID L. ESPINOZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. SALDIVAR, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-00812 DAD DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT 

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff David L. Espinoza, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 29, 2015. 

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

governmental entity or an 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). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

Case 1:15-cv-00812-DAD-SAB Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 1 of 3
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

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and 

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). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated 

in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This 

requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners 

proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and 

to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(citations omitted), but nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the 

plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

II. Discussion

Plaintiff was incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California, at the 

time the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff brings this action against the following 

Defendants: Correctional Case Records Analyst P. Saldivar; Correctional Case Records 

Supervisor C. Bartz; Correctional Case Records Manager S. Mendonca; Associate Warden D. 

Fisher; and Warden S. Frauenheim. 

While not entirely clear, Plaintiff appears to challenge the computation of his sentence. He 

claims that his sentence and release date have been miscalculated. He requests that his sentence 

be recalculated to award him with proper credits. A civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of that confinement. 

McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499

(1973); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). On the other hand, a habeas corpus 

petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his 

Case 1:15-cv-00812-DAD-SAB Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

confinement. Badea, 931 F.2d at 574 (quoting Preiser, 411 U.S. at 485; Advisory Committee 

Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In this case, Plaintiff is challenging 

the duration of his sentence; therefore, he must seek relief by filing a habeas corpus petition 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

III. Recommendation

Accordingly, the Court hereby RECOMMENDS that the complaint be DISMISSED 

without leave to amend, and that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to send Plaintiff blank forms 

for filing a habeas petition. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the District Judge assigned to this case 

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of 

Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, Plaintiff may file written objections 

with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 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: April 19, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00812-DAD-SAB Document 12 Filed 04/20/16 Page 3 of 3