Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01473/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01473-3/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

ALEXANDER KOMARENKO,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM H. McCARTHY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01473 OWW DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(Doc. 1)

Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Alexander Komarenko (“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

October 10, 2007.

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). 

///

Case 1:07-cv-01473-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 06/17/08 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

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

“Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the liberal pleading

standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330

n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements

of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257

(9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison. Plaintiff names district

attorney William H. McCarthy, public defender Mark D. Owens, Judge J. Stuart, court reporter

Laurie McCumber, court reporter Cindee LeFevre, and Becki Stine as defendants (“defendants”) in

this action. Plaintiff alleges that defendants prevented him from receiving a fair trial and prevented

him from presenting a defense. Plaintiff contends that he is now unlawfully imprisoned. Plaintiff

alleges violation of the First, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff requests

declaratory relief, money damages, and a new trial or rehearing. 

When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a constitutional

challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas

corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990),

cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Moreover, when seeking damages for an allegedly

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, “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 determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance

of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (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 488. 

Case 1:07-cv-01473-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 06/17/08 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

In the present case, plaintiff raises a constitutional challenge regarding the legality of his

custody, and seeks money damages for an allegedly unconstitutional imprisonment. Plaintiff’s sole

remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Plaintiff’s complaint does not state any claim for relief under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. 

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

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). Within thirty (30)

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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 16, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01473-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 06/17/08 Page 3 of 3