Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03723/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03723-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUILLIE L. HARVEY, JR., 

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

M. S. EVANS, Warden,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-3723 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP"), has filed a

pro se prisoner complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging a June 2005

disciplinary finding of possession of a weapon/possession of a controlled

substance, which resulted in his placement in administrative segregation but for

which no time credit was forfeited. Plaintiff challenged the same disciplinary

finding in a prior prisoner complaint which was dismissed in relevant part on the

ground that the deprivation alleged was not one of "real substance." Harvey v.

Schwarzenegger, No. C 07-1244 CRB (PR), slip op. at 3 (N.D. Cal. July 21,

2008) (citing Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 477-87 (1995)).

A prisoner complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated

claims may be considered abusive and dismissed under the authority of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A. Cf. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995)

Case 3:08-cv-03723-CRB Document 5 Filed 08/20/08 Page 1 of 2
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

(citing Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988)) (duplicative in

forma pauperis complaint may be considered abusive and dismissed under 28

U.S.C. § 1915). Because plaintiff raised the same challenge/claim raised herein

in Harvey v. Schwarzenegger, No. C 07-1244 CRB (PR), the instant complaint is

deemed duplicative and abusive under § 1915A. See id.

That plaintiff now alleges that the June 2005 disciplinary finding was used

to deny him parole in 2007 does not compel a different result. Because a

prisoner's disciplinary record is just one of many factors used to decide whether a

prisoner is suitable for parole, it simply cannot be said that plaintiff's June 2005

disciplinary finding "will inevitably affect the duration of [his] sentence." 

Sandin, 515 U.S. at 487. After all, the attachments to plaintiff's complaint make

clear that other factors weighed against finding plaintiff suitable for parole in

2007, including other recent disciplinary findings.

The complaint is DISMISSED as duplicative, and for failure to state a

claim, under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The clerk shall enter

judgment in accordance with this order and close the file. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 20, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.08\Harvey, Q1.dismiss.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-03723-CRB Document 5 Filed 08/20/08 Page 2 of 2