Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00095/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00095-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON TYLER HUGHES, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

GARY COLLINS, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:10cv00095 AWI DLB 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the

instant action on January 19, 2010. He names Parole Agent Gary Collins, Parole Agent Drew

White, Dr. Rau Guru, the State of California and the Bakersfield Parole Office as Defendants. 

DISCUSSION

A. Screening Standard

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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to

state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint

1

Case 1:10-cv-00095-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 07/23/10 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

can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

B. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff alleges that Parole Agent Gary Collins manipulated paperwork, which resulted in

his unjust imprisonment and revocation of his parole. By way of relief, Plaintiff asks that a jury

decide if Defendants were wrong for sending him to prison. He also requests that the State of

California compensate him in the amount of three million dollars. 

C. Analysis

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. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 1245-48 (2005);

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 relief 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 . . . bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is

not cognizable under § 1983.” Id. at 488 (emphasis in original).

Plaintiff may not at this time bring a civil rights action arising out of his allegedly

wrongful parole revocation. Plaintiff’s sole remedy is to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without

prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under

section 1983. Plaintiff cannot cure the above deficiencies and leave to amend would be futile. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the Honorable Anthony W.

Ishii, 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

2

Case 1:10-cv-00095-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 07/23/10 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

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: July 22, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:10-cv-00095-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 07/23/10 Page 3 of 3