Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06403/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06403-0/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

MANUEL ROMERO,

Plaintiff,

v.

D.A. YBARRA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 6403 AWI LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION (Doc. 1.) 

 Manuel Romero (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on

October 14, 2004, naming D.A. Ybarra, S. Aguilera-Marrero, and Tony Loftin as Defendants. 

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

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). 

Case 1:04-cv-06403-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 04/11/06 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

“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

The Complaint alleges that on December 15, 2002, Plaintiff and another inmate engaged

in a heated argument and began to physically fight. Plaintiff was placed in administrative

segregation and a Rules Violation Report was issued. A disciplinary hearing was held on

December 30, 2002, and Plaintiff alleges that despite the employee witnesses statements that

there the fight did not involve a weapon, Plaintiff was found guilty of battery with a deadly

weapon. Plaintiff was also assessed a forfeiture of credit of 360 days and a Security Housing

Unit (“SHU”) term of 24 months. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ybarra violated his right to

due process because he was biased. Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant Aguilera-Marrero and

Loftin are also liable because they were aware of the violations and failed to remedy them. 

Plaintiff is seeking nominal damages and dismissal of disciplinary finding or a new disciplinary

proceeding.

C. SECTION 1983 DUE PROCESS CLAIM

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants stem from the issuance of the Rules Violation

Report and the subsequent finding of guilt. As punishment, Plaintiff was assessed, in part, a

three-hundred sixty day credit loss, which affects the length of Plaintiff’s sentence. Where, as

Case 1:04-cv-06403-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 04/11/06 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

1Where Plaintiff seeks to challenge either the fact or duration of his confinement, his sole remedy is to file a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after exhausting state judicial remedies. See

Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747, 118 S.Ct. 1694 (1998). 

3

here, “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 punishment

imposed at the disciplinary hearing affects the duration of Plaintiff’s sentence, Plaintiff’s due

process claim is barred until such time as Plaintiff invalidates the result of the disciplinary

hearing. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a cognizable claim under § 1983 and

must be DISMISSED without prejudice.1 See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 649, 117 S.Ct.

1584 (1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir.1995). 

D. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

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

under section 1983 and are not capable of being cured by amendment. Thus, 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-06403-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 04/11/06 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

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: April 10, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06403-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 04/11/06 Page 4 of 4