Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05123/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05123-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIS RICHARD FRESQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOEROYK,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5123 AWI LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO

STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF

CAN BE GRANTED (Doc.1.) 

 Louis Richard Fresquez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (Americans with Disabilities Act) and

29 U.S.C. § 794 (Rehabilitation Act) Plaintiff filed the instant action on March 11, 2003, in the

Northern District of California. The case was subsequently transferred to this Court and received

on January 21, 2004. 

A. 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

Case 1:04-cv-05123-AWI -GSA Document 14 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 6
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

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, 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 as true 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). 

B. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that on December 3, 2002, he was issued a Rules Violation Report for

using the bathroom aft erhte 5:00 p.m count was taken. Plaintiff states that this was in violation

of institutional policy and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff was later found guilty of

“OFF AIGNED BUNK DURING COUNT,” restriced from yard access, telephone access,

quarterly packages, and canteen for thirty days. Plaintiff also states he was assessed a loss of

thirty days good time credits as well. Plaintiff states that he next was asked by Defendant

Moerdyk on December 12, 2002, whether he wanted to have the hearing without the assistance of

a sign language interpreter. Plaintiff agreed stating he was willing to have it in writing. 

However, during the course of the hearing, the guard who wrote the RVR came in and had

several conversations which Plaintiff, being deaf, could not hear or participate in. Plaintiff gave

the Lt. several Memorandums on Institutional Policy regarding use of the bathroom after the

count, however, he ignored the policy and Plaintiff was found guilty. Plaintiff alleges that he was

Case 1:04-cv-05123-AWI -GSA Document 14 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 6
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

not off his bunk during count and cannot hear announcements made over the P.A. system. 

Plaintiff alleges that this evidence of “her” hatred for deaf inmates. 

On Decmeber 17, 2002, Lt. Moeryk held a CDC 115 hearing in the counselors office. 

Plaintiff originally requested the aid of an interpreter but did not get one so he agreed to conduct

the hearing in writing. Plaintiff states he did not agree to have the guard who wrote him up carry

on a lengthy discussion about him that he could not hear or participate in. Plaintiff contends that

the presence of the guard was contrary to procedures and violated his due process rights. 

Plaintiff states he was found guilty and assessed thirty days loss of good time credits. Plaintiff

alleges that this is a violation of his rights as there is no institutional policy limiting movement

inside the building after count has been taken. 

Plaintiff alleges that he asked Sgt. Werner to instruct guards on this policy but he ignored

him out of “sheer enjoyment and deliberately discriminating.” Plaintiff alleges that the Building

3 guards do not have a policy in place on how a deaf inmate can get their attention. Plaintiff

states that he has been threatened by guards who will place their hands on their cans of mace. 

Plaintiff alleges that there is no means of informing deaf inmates on what is being annuonced on

the P.A. system. 

Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an Order preventing the prison offficials from

engaging in discriminatory practices and ordering officials to follow Title 15. Plaintiff also

request s that the 30-30 hearing be reversed and that he receive monetary damages for the loss of

good time credits, issue an injunction prohibiting officials from retaliating against him for filing

this action and award Plaintiff damages in the amount of $3,000.00.

C. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. ADA & RA

Plaintiff states that he is bringing this action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities

Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides

that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded

from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public

entity, or be subject to discrimination by such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The Rehabilitation

Case 1:04-cv-05123-AWI -GSA Document 14 Filed 11/16/05 Page 3 of 6
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

Act (RA) provides that “no otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall, solely by

reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or

be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial

assistance . . . .” 29 U. S. C. § 794. Title II of the ADA and the RA apply to inmates within state

prisons. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 118 S.Ct. 1952, 1955 (1998); see also

Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 1997); Duffy v. Riveland, 98 F.3d 447, 453-

56 (9th Cir. 1996).

In order to state a claim under the ADA and the RA, Plaintiff must have been “improperly

excluded from participation in, and denied the benefits of, a prison service, program, or activity

on the basis of his physical handicap.” Armstrong at 1023. Plaintiff has alleged no such

exclusion or denial. Plaintiff’s chief complaint is that the prison violated its institutional policy

when it disciplined Plaintiff for using the restroom after the evening count. However, this is

insufficient to state a claim under either the ADA and RA. Thus, Plaintiff fails to state a claim

under the ADA and the RA. The Court will provide plaintiff with the opportunity to file an

Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies in his claims.

2. Disciplinary Finding & Loss of Credits

In his prayer for relief, Plaintiff seeks reversal of the disciplinary hearing and monetary

damages for the loss good time credits.

Plaintiff’s request for reversal of the hearing is a direct challenge to the duration of his

confinement. 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

Case 1:04-cv-05123-AWI -GSA Document 14 Filed 11/16/05 Page 4 of 6
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

5

sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.” Id. at 488. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff may not pursue the instant damages action. If Plaintiff wishes to challenge

his conviction and/or custody duration, he must do so via a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Even were Plaintiff seeking only monetary damages and not reversal of the disciplinary

finding, he could not proceed in a Section 1983 case until without first seeking habeas corpus

relief. Where, "success in a . . . [section] 1983 damages action would implicitly question the

validity of conviction or duration of sentence, the litigant must first achieve favorable

termination of his available state, or federal habeas, opportunities to challenge the underlying

conviction or sentence." Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 751, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 (2004)

(citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997)

(applying Heck to a prison disciplinary hearing where good-time credits were affected). Because

the loss of time credits affects the duration of Plaintiff’s sentence, a claim based on the

deprivation of the credits is barred until such time as plaintiff invalidates the result of the

disciplinary hearing. 

D. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief

under the ADA, RA or Section 1983. Further, the Court finds that the deficiencies outlined

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

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed in its entirety.

It is HEREBY ORDERED that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted to the

United States District Court Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 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

of this Report and Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court and

serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served and filed

within TEN (10) court days (plus three (3) days if served by mail) after service of the Objections. 

Case 1:04-cv-05123-AWI -GSA Document 14 Filed 11/16/05 Page 5 of 6
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

6

The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05123-AWI -GSA Document 14 Filed 11/16/05 Page 6 of 6