Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00228/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00228-4/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

JOE SHERMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0228 GEB CMK P

vs.

ROBERT DYNES, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding in this civil rights action without counsel and pro se. On

March 14, 2007, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. On May 15, 2007,

plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 14.) 

The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if

the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or

in fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,

1227-28 (9th Cir.1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based

on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. See

Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327

Case 2:07-cv-00228-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 06/15/07 Page 1 of 3
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

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. Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); 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 Hosp. 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).

In his amended complaint, plaintiff names President of U.C. Regents Robert

Daynes and Chancellor of U.C. Davis Larry Vanderhoef as defendants. Plaintiff alleges that

defendants were "acting as supervisors & chief policy makers of UC Davis including UCD police. 

Their edicts, policies, & practices may be accurately claimed to be the official policies and

practices of the UC Davis police and other employees of UCD." (Doc. 14 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges

violation of his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights stemming from his removal from

the U.C. Davis campus. It appears from the complaint that plaintiff's removal from the U.C.

Davis campus was due to conditions prohibiting plaintiff from being on the U.C. Davis campus,

which were part of a probation condition imposed by the Yolo County Superior Court. (Doc. 14

at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that he is challenging the probation condition through a habeas petition,

but he does not allege that habeas relief has been granted or that the underlying sentence has been

otherwise invalidated. (Doc. 14 at 4.) 

In order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction

or 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

authorized to make such a decision, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ

Case 2:07-cv-00228-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 06/15/07 Page 2 of 3
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

of habeas corpus. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). A claim for damages

which would necessarily invalidate a conviction or sentence is not cognizable under § 1983.

Plaintiff has represented in his complaint that the conviction which lead to his probation

conditions has not been invalidated, and, in fact, is currently the subject of an active habeas

petition. Granting relief on plaintiff's complaint would invalidate his probation conditions and

his underlying conviction. The court finds that plaintiff fails to state a cognizable civil rights

complaint. Moreover, at this point, it appears that further amendment would be futile. 

See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

These findings and recommendations are 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. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 14, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00228-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 06/15/07 Page 3 of 3