Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00710/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00710-2/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

CEDRIC GREENE,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. HENDERSON.,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-710-AWI DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RE

DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

OBJECTIONS DUE MARCH 15, 2007

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on June 2, 2005 and an amended complaint

on March 27, 2006. 

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).

“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

Case 1:05-cv-00710-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 02/27/07 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

27

28

2

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citingConley 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).

The events at issue in the instant action allegedlyoccurred at Lancaster State Prison. Plaintiff

names R.Henderson, Correctional Lieutenant at Lancaster States Prison as the only defendant.

Plaintiff alleges that on January 1, 2005, defendant punished him for a rules violation that he did not

commit. He also states that he was punished twice for this offense. He states that another inmate

threw an object at him and he reacted. Nevertheless, plaintiff was punished for the offense and lost

time credits. Plaintiff seeks money damages.

As plaintiff was previously advised, if “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, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 (2004) (citing to

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). If the punishment

imposed at the disciplinaryhearing 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.

Thus, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court

therefore recommends dismissal of this action without leave to amend. The court does not

recommend that plaintiff be granted the opportunity to amend the complaint, as plaintiff was advised

of the applicable legal standards and granted leave to amend. Plaintiff was unable to cure the

deficiencies of the original complaint. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). On or before March

Case 1:05-cv-00710-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 02/27/07 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

27

28

3

15, 2007, 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.

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 27, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00710-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 02/27/07 Page 3 of 3