Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-03006/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-03006-0/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

WO JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Edward James O'Brien, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Phil Hanson, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-3006-PCT-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Edward James O'Brien, who is confined in the Arizona Department of

Corrections, Apache Unit in St. Johns, Arizona, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. # 1).

The Court will deny the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and dismiss this action

without prejudice.

I. Background

Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which permits a plaintiff to

seek relief for federal constitutional violations by officials acting under color of state law.

Plaintiff in part seeks damages for allegedly unconstitutional conduct in connection with

prison disciplinary proceedings; however, Plaintiff also seeks review of those proceedings.

The disciplinary proceedings resulted in an unspecified loss of good-time credits, which

lengthened Plaintiff's sentence, and a sanction of more than $2,000 from his inmate trust

account. Plaintiff alleges that ADC officials denied him due process by, among other things,

refusing to consider witnesses or evidence refuting the disciplinary charges. 

///

Case 3:06-cv-03006-SMM--LOA Document 3 Filed 12/28/06 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 -

II. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

A court may authorize the commencement of a civil action without prepayment of fees

by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner

possesses and that he is unable to pay such fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). A prisoner

commencing a civil action must nevertheless pay the full among of the filing fee and when

such funds exist, the court must assess and collect such fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). In this

case, Plaintiff has used the court-approved form, but he has left blank the “Certificate of

Correctional Official as to Status of Applicant’s Trust Account” section. In light of this

deficiency, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 

III. Heck v. Humphrey Bar

When success on a claim could potentially affect the duration of confinement, habeas

corpus is the appropriate vehicle to seek relief; a civil rights action pursuant to § 1983 is not

available unless and until the prisoner has obtained a “favorable termination” of the

underlying disciplinary action. Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024, 1031 (9th Cir. 2004). That

is, a civil rights claim under § 1983 does not accrue unless or until the prisoner has obtained

a “favorable termination”of the underlying disciplinary action. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477, 489 (1994). Under the “favorable termination” rule:

In order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by action whose unlawfulness would

render a conviction of sentence invalid, 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 . . . or called into question

by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus . . . 

Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. The “favorable termination” rule has been extended to prison

disciplinary actions, when alleged due process defects, if established, would “necessarily

imply the invalidity of the deprivation of [the prisoner’s] good-time credits.” Edwards v.

Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1997); cf. Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 1997)

(applying the “favorable termination rule” in challenge to parole revocation). Thus, where

success in a prisoner’s action would decrease the length of his sentence, a § 1983 claim is not

Case 3:06-cv-03006-SMM--LOA Document 3 Filed 12/28/06 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 - 3 -

cognizable until the disciplinary conviction has been invalidated. That appears to be the case

here. To prevail on his due process claim for damages under § 1983 would necessarily

undermine the validity of his disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, Plaintiff must seek review

of the disciplinary proceedings and obtain a “favorable termination” before he may seek

damages pursuant to § 1983. 

To challenge disciplinary proceedings, a prisoner may seek federal habeas relief

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which is the “exclusive vehicle” for a state prisoner to seek

relief from an administrative decision in federal court. See White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002,

1009-10 (9th Cir. 2004). Before a federal court may grant habeas relief, however, a prisoner

must first have exhausted remedies available in the state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1);

O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). The federal court will not entertain a

petition for writ of habeas corpus unless each and every issue has been exhausted. Rose v.

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 521-22 (1982); Olvera v. Guirbino, 371 F.3d 569, 572 (9th Cir. 2004)

(district court may not consider a claim until petitioner has properly exhausted all available

remedies). When seeking habeas relief, the burden is on the habeas petitioner to show that

he has properly exhausted each claim. Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir.

1981) (per curiam). 

Plaintiff indicates that he has only challenged his disciplinary conviction in the

prison’s internal process and not in the state courts. To exhaust claims, however, a prisoner

must give the state courts a “fair opportunity” to act on his claims. Castillo v. McFadden,

370 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2004). He must describe both the operative facts and the federal legal

theory so that the state courts have a “fair opportunity” to apply controlling legal principles

to the facts bearing upon his constitutional claim.” Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th

Cir. 2003). A prisoner seeking to exhaust claims in state court before filing a federal habeas

action should diligently pursue his available state remedies to avoid application of the oneyear limitation period. See Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) (applying

§ 2244(d) to a habeas petition challenging a disciplinary order). 

Case 3:06-cv-03006-SMM--LOA Document 3 Filed 12/28/06 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 -

 Plaintiff appears to have an available remedy in state court to exhaust his claims

challenging the disciplinary proceedings prior to filing a federal habeas corpus petition.

Although Arizona’s Administrative Review Act does not authorize state judicial review of

prison disciplinary proceedings, an inmate may seek such review by bringing a special action

in superior court. Rose v. Arizona Dep’t of Corr., 804 P.2d 845, 847-50 (Ariz. Ct. App.

1991). If unsuccessful, the inmate must then appeal the superior court’s ruling to the Arizona

Court of Appeals to exhaust his claims before seeking federal habeas relief. See Swoopes

v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied (Doc. # 1).

(2) Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. 

(3) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 27th day of December, 2006.

 

Case 3:06-cv-03006-SMM--LOA Document 3 Filed 12/28/06 Page 4 of 4