Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01478/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01478-0/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

FRED GRAVES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1478 FCD DAD P

vs.

B. GENTRY, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance with

Local Rule 72-302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted his in forma pauperis application on a form appropriate for

use in a habeas corpus proceeding. The form does not provide information concerning the

average monthly deposits and average monthly balance for plaintiff’s prison trust account during

the six-month period preceding the filing of plaintiff’s civil rights complaint. Nor does the form

authorize the withdrawal of money from plaintiff’s prison trust account for payment of the

$250.00 filing fee. Plaintiff’s incomplete application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will

be denied without prejudice. 

Case 2:05-cv-01478-FCD-DAD Document 7 Filed 07/10/06 Page 1 of 5
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

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. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). At screening, the court must dismiss claims that are legally frivolous or malicious,

claims that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and claims that seek monetary

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

Similarly, when a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court is required to dismiss the

case if the court determines at any time that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a

claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably

meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at

327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an

arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989);

Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A claim should 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

that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); 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 accepts as true the allegations of the complaint. See

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). The court also construes

the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolves doubts in the plaintiff’s

favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

In the present case, plaintiff is confined in Chuckawalla Valley State Prison but

alleged claims that arose at Folsom State Prison in 2004. The defendants are B. Gentry, the

Case 2:05-cv-01478-FCD-DAD Document 7 Filed 07/10/06 Page 2 of 5
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

appeals coordinator at Folsom State Prison; T.L. Swetich, a correctional lieutenant at Folsom

State Prison at the relevant time; and Mary Beard, a correctional officer at Folsom State Prison. 

Plaintiff alleges irregularities in disciplinary proceedings in 2004. Plaintiff alleges that defendant

Swetich served as the hearing officer and violated plaintiff’s due process and equal protection

rights by covering up a forgery in defendant Beard’s disciplinary report in order to convict

plaintiff of a wrongful disciplinary charge. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Beard searched his

cell on August 14, 2004, and did not remove anything that required issuance of a CDC 115, yet

she returned two and a half hours later and claimed she had found pruno in plaintiff’s cell. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Beard changed her story several times with regard to the signature

on the disciplinary report and other matters. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Gentry assisted in

the cover up of the forgery and persuaded defendant Beard to commit perjury concerning the

disciplinary report. 

Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the disciplinary hearing was invalid, an order

expunging the records of the disciplinary from his prison records, and compensatory and punitive

damages from each defendant.

Attached to plaintiff’s complaint as Exhibit D is a copy of a rules violation report

issued on August 14, 2004. The exhibit reveals that plaintiff was found guilty of possession of

inmate manufactured alcohol, was assessed 120 days credit forfeiture, and was advised that he

would not be entitled to credit restoration. Plaintiff’s Exhibits D and E reveal that plaintiff’s

inmate appeal bypassed the informal and first formal levels, was denied at the second formal

level, and was rejected as untimely at the director’s level.

When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks

will result in a determination of his entitlement to an earlier or immediate release, his sole federal

remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). In the

present case, plaintiff seeks the invalidation of a disciplinary conviction that resulted in 120 days

credit forfeiture. If the court were to invalidate the conviction and order that the disciplinary be

Case 2:05-cv-01478-FCD-DAD Document 7 Filed 07/10/06 Page 3 of 5
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

expunged from plaintiff’s records, as plaintiff requests, plaintiff would be entitled to the

restoration of 120 days of credits. Such relief is not available in a federal civil rights action. If

plaintiff exhausted state court remedies with regard to the disciplinary conviction, he may file a

federal habeas petition in which he challenges the conviction and seeks to have the conviction

invalidated on constitutional grounds.

When a prisoner seeks money damages based on allegations that imply the

invalidity of his confinement, the prisoner may not seek such damages pursuant to § 1983 until

he has established, through appropriate state or federal remedies, that his confinement is in fact

illegal. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87

(1994). Plaintiff’s exhibits reveal that his disciplinary conviction was not invalidated during

administrative proceedings, and plaintiff has not alleged that the conviction was overturned by a

state court. Accordingly, plaintiff may not seek damages for his claims that he was wrongfully

convicted of a disciplinary charge. To the extent that the defendants are responsible for

plaintiff’s forfeiture of 120 days of credits, plaintiff’s claims for damages are not cognizable

under § 1983 at this time and must be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may re-file such

claims in a new case at a later time if his disciplinary conviction is “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.” 

Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87.

The undersigned finds that plaintiff cannot amend his pleading to state a claim

that is cognizable in federal court at the present time. The complaint should be dismissed

without leave to amend. See Coakley v. Murphy, 884 F.2d 1218, 1221-22 (9th Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 22, 2005 application

to proceed in forma pauperis is denied; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for

failure to state a cognizable claim.

Case 2:05-cv-01478-FCD-DAD Document 7 Filed 07/10/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

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

DATED: July 10, 2006.

DAD:13

grav1478.56

Case 2:05-cv-01478-FCD-DAD Document 7 Filed 07/10/06 Page 5 of 5