Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03586/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03586-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d

565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and, unless otherwise noted, is hereinafter referred to as the

“complaint.”

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD G. STINSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et al., 

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 06-3586 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

AND DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND; DENYING PENDING

MOTIONS; GRANTING REQUEST

TO LODGE ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS

(Docket Nos. 8, 9, 14, 20, 22, 24, 27, 29, 

35, 38 & 41)

On June 5, 2006, plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the

California State Prison in Solano, California (“Solano”) and proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 26, 2006, he filed an

amended complaint setting forth 29 claims against numerous state and local agencies and

officials and seeking three million dollars in damages.1

 By separate order filed concurrently

herewith, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

Case 3:06-cv-03586-MMC Document 49 Filed 01/05/07 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The 25 claims are claims 1 - 21 and 25 - 28.

2

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,

48 (1988).

A. Claims Pertaining to Parole Revocation

Of the 29 claims in the complaint, 25 allege plaintiff’s constitutional rights were

violated in connection with the revocation of his parole in February 2006, which revocation

led to plaintiff’s present incarceration.2

 In particular, plaintiff alleges various police and

parole officers violated his constitutional rights while investigating the violation of his

parole, that parole board members violated his constitutional rights at the parole revocation

hearing, and that the attorneys appointed to represent him at the parole revocation hearing

provided ineffective assistance. 

 In order to recover damages based on an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or term

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

conviction or sentence invalid, a plaintiff asserting a violation of § 1983 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 determination, or called into

question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. See Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). A claim for damages based upon a conviction or sentence

that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. See id. at 487. 

Consequently, a plaintiff may not seek money damages based on alleged constitutional

violations that led to his confinement following a parole revocation hearing if he does not

Case 3:06-cv-03586-MMC Document 49 Filed 01/05/07 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

allege that the parole board's decision has been reversed, expunged, set aside or called into

question. See Littles v. Bd. of Pardons and Paroles Div., 68 F.3d 122, 123 (5th Cir. 1995);

see also McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 1995)

(holding Heck bars § 1983 action challenging revocation of supervised release). Here,

plaintiff claims defendants violated his constitutional rights while investigating his violation

of parole and during the ensuing parole revocation hearing that led to his present

incarceration. As a result, plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are barred until such time as the parole

board’s decision revoking parole has been reversed, expunged, set aside or otherwise called

into question.

B. Remaining Claims

1. Claims 22 through 24

In claims 22 and 23, plaintiff alleges he was deprived of adequate medical care while

he was on parole. Plaintiff names as defendants to these claims the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), the California Board of Prison Terms, and the

California Parole Community Service Division. These defendants, all state governmental

entities, are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. See Allison v. California

Adult Authority, 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1969) (finding California Adult Authority and

San Quentin Prison immune); Bennett v. California, 406 F.2d 36, 39 (9th Cir. 1969) (finding

California Adult Authority and California Department of Corrections immune). Similarly, as

to claim 24, in which plaintiff claims his incoming and outgoing legal mail was disrupted at

Solano, plaintiff names as defendants the CDCR and “Solano State Prison.” These state

governmental entities likewise are immune under the Eleventh Amendment. See id. 

Additionally, in claims 22 through 24, plaintiff names as defendants the “staff” of the

above-referenced state governmental entities. Individuals working for the state government

may not have Eleventh Amendment immunity to the extent they are sued in their individual

capacities. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25, 31 (1991). Plaintiff, however, does not

identify any individual staff members as defendants; as noted, he simply lists the “staff.” To

state a claim under § 1983 against an individual defendant, a plaintiff must set forth specific

Case 3:06-cv-03586-MMC Document 49 Filed 01/05/07 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

facts as to each individual defendant’s conduct, and show such conduct proximately caused a

violation of his rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Chuman

v. Wright, 76 F.3d 292, 294-95 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding defendant cannot be held liable

based simply on membership in group; requiring showing as to each defendant’s

participation in unlawful conduct). Plaintiff will be given leave to amend the complaint to

identify, if he can do so, the individuals involved in the constitutional violations alleged in

claims 22 through 24, and to set forth specific facts showing that each such individual’s

actions proximately caused said violations.

2. Claim 29

Lastly, in claim 29, plaintiff alleges defendants Oakland Police Officers Tisdel and

Biletnikoff deprived him of adequate medical care after arresting him and transporting him to

the county jail. Liberally construed, this claim is cognizable. 

D. Motions

Plaintiff has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and/or a

preliminary injunction, by which motion plaintiff seeks an order precluding “prison

authorities” at Solano from interfering with his mail. Plaintiff has neither complied with the

notice requirement of Rule 65(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nor certified the

reasons for his not providing such notice, as required by Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Moreover, plaintiff does not identify the “authorities” who are allegedly

interfering with his mail and against whom he seeks a TRO or preliminary injunction. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for a TRO and/or a preliminary injunction is hereby

DENIED. 

Plaintiff also has filed a motion for “partial summary judgment.” This motion is

premature; defendants have not been served with summons and the complaint, let alone had

adequate time to discover the facts underlying plaintiff’s claims. In addition, as discussed

above, all but four of plaintiff’s claims are not cognizable as a matter of law, and only one of

plaintiff’s four remaining claims is going forward as pleaded. Following any further

amendment of the complaint and service on the defendants, plaintiff may file a summary

Case 3:06-cv-03586-MMC Document 49 Filed 01/05/07 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

judgment motion with respect to any surviving claims, as provided below. The present

motion for partial summary judgment is hereby DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s “Motion for Safeguard of Constitutional Rights” and “Motion to be

Award[ed] Compensation and Damages,” in which plaintiff argues his claims should be

granted, are not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, accordingly, these

two motions are hereby DENIED. 

Additionally, plaintiff’s numerous motions for default judgment are hereby DENIED; 

as noted, defendants have not been served with summons and the complaint. 

Finally, plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED as there are

no exceptional circumstances warranting such appointment. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Social

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981) (finding no constitutional right to counsel in civil case). 

Should the circumstances of the case materially change, the Court may reconsider plaintiff’s

request for appointment of counsel sua sponte.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. Claim 29, liberally construed, states a cognizable claim against Officers

Biletnikoff and Tisdel. Claims 22 through 24 are hereby DISMISSED with leave to amend. 

The remaining claims, specifically, claims 1 - 21 and 25 - 28, are hereby DISMISSED

without prejudice to plaintiff’s refiling said claims at such time as the parole board’s decision

revoking parole has been reversed, expunged, set aside or otherwise called into question.

2. Within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff may file an

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, using the court’s form civil rights complaint, in

order to cure the deficiencies explained above in Claims 22 - 24. Plaintiff shall complete the

form, and include in the caption both the case number of this action, No. C 06-3586 MMC

(PR), and the phrase “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT.” 

An amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and may not incorporate by

reference any parts of the original complaint. London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811,

814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer

Case 3:06-cv-03586-MMC Document 49 Filed 01/05/07 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

defendants to the action. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). These

rules govern actions filed by pro se litigants as well as litigants represented by counsel. See

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

If plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint and wishes to preserve

Claim 29 from the amended complaint, he must include such claim in his second

amended complaint; if plaintiff fails to include Claim 29 in a second amended

complaint, it will not be considered by the Court and will no longer be part of this

action. If plaintiff fails to timely file a second amended complaint in conformity with

this order, the action will proceed only on the basis of Claim 29 in the amended

complaint.

3. It is plaintiffs’ responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action, pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute.

4. Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO and/or a preliminary injunction, “Motion for

Safeguard of Constitutional Rights,” “Motion to be Award[ed] Compensation and Damages,”

motion for partial summary judgment, motions for default judgment and motion for

appointment of counsel, are hereby DENIED. Plaintiff’s request to lodge additional exhibits

is hereby GRANTED. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 8, 9, 14, 20, 22, 24, 27, 29, 35, 38 and 41.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 5, 2007 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03586-MMC Document 49 Filed 01/05/07 Page 6 of 6