Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00633/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00633-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID W. MAUPIN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR DIRECTOR TILMAN, et al, 

Defendants. /

No. C 08-0633 TEH (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California currently incarcerated at San Quentin

State Prison, filed this civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding his continued

incarceration. Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no.

2). That motion is GRANTED in a separate order, filed simultaneously. The complaint is

now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and the Court now

DISMISSES the complaint for the reasons set forth below. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that Defendant has “failed to release the Plaintiff

from parole 10/31/04. Defendant continues to violate Plaintiff’s liberty and falsely imprison

Plaintiff.” Complaint at 3. He further alleges that he has spent 15 months in prison since

that time for “technical rule violations.” However, in the complaint, Plaintiff does not

identify anything about parole violation proceedings or specify that the outcome of that

proceeding has been set aside. Plaintiff seeks damages.

Case 3:08-cv-00633-TEH Document 5 Filed 02/06/08 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

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of 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 dismiss any claims which 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. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that

a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

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 42 U.S.C. § 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 determination, or called into question by a federal

court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487

(1994). A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has

not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Id. at 487. Heck makes it clear that a

§ 1983 "cause of action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional conviction or

sentence does not accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invalidated." Heck, 512

U.S. at 489-90 (footnote omitted). 

When a prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must therefore

consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity

of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff

Case 3:08-cv-00633-TEH Document 5 Filed 02/06/08 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

can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. Id. at 487. 

Where a claim would, if successful, “necessarily accelerate” the prisoner’s release on parole,

Heck applies. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2003) (interpreting Neal v.

Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818 (9th Cir. 1997)). But cf. id. at 858 (interpreting Bostic v. Carlson,

884 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir. 1989), to hold that Heck applies where expungement of a

disciplinary finding is “likely to accelerate” the prisoner’s eligibility for parole); id. (“[T]he

likelihood of the effect on the overall length of the prisoner’s sentence from a successful

§ 1983 action determines the availability of habeas corpus” and thus the applicability of

Heck). 

"Heck applies to proceedings [that] call into question the fact or duration of parole." 

Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 851 (1995). A

challenge to the denial of parole, whether based upon procedural defects in the parole hearing

or upon allegations that parole was improperly denied on the merits, directly implicates the

validity of the prisoner's continued confinement. See Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023,

1024 (9th Cir. 1997). Similarly, a challenge to the denial of parole by inmates convicted of

certain offenses, based upon allegations of deceit and bias in the administration of the state’s

parole statutes, implies the invalidity of the inmates’ confinement “insofar as their prolonged

incarcerations are due to the purported bias of state officials.” McQuillion v.

Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1097-98 (9th Cir. 2004) (disclaimer in complaint that the inmates

“do not seek relief that implicates the continuing validity of their confinement” does not take

their claims outside of Heck’s bar). Where, as here, a successful claim would “necessarily

accelerate” Plaintiff’s release, the action must be DISMISSED without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED for the reasons

set forth above. The Clerk shall close the file and enter judgment in this case. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 02/05/08 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00633-TEH Document 5 Filed 02/06/08 Page 3 of 3