Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01323/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01323-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LEE DISNEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1323 MCE DAD P

vs.

J.L. COBBS, 

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on November

6, 2006.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

Case 2:06-cv-01323-MCE -DAD Document 10 Filed 03/22/07 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

2

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted only if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the

claim that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); 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. See Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees,

425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). The court must also construe the pleading in the light most favorable

to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S.

411, 421 (1969).

Here, plaintiff alleges that defendants Warden Eddie Yslt, Jerry Brown, and

Lieutenant Jack Pulsher have failed to honor a contractual agreement made with plaintiff.

Plaintiff contends that he has made the following monetary contributions for the following

business ventures: $2.5 million in 1974 for real estate; $180,000 in 1982 for the Prison Industrial

Authority; $180,000 to build an eating area for correctional staff; $120,000 in 1982 for buying

trash dumpsters; $2.5 million in 1983 to build a shooting range; $220,00 in 1982-83 for light

fixtures; and $160,000 for paint. Plaintiff also contends that he was employed at the California 

Medical Facility as a correctional sergeant and that he has not received the $50,000 due him. 

Plaintiff claims that defendants have acted individually or in concert “to deliberately deprive

plaintiff of his imperative constitutional rights, in which was clearly established and well settled

[sic].” (Compl. at 2.) Plaintiff seeks ten million dollars as compensatory damages and an

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01323-MCE -DAD Document 10 Filed 03/22/07 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

3

 injunction “compelling defendants to provide to honor contract agreement, and provede [sic] the

plaintiff with a full pardon.” (Id. at 3.)

The court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff is not

challenging the conditions of his confinement. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir.

1991) (holding that a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper mechanism

for raising a federal challenge to conditions of confinement). Instead, plaintiff seeks monetary

damages to recover amounts allegedly due him in connection with various business ventures he

claims to have entered into with the named defendants. Moreover, to the extent that plaintiff

seeks a pardon, this is not relief that can be granted in a § 1983 action. 

 On June 15, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

The motion should be denied because this civil rights action fails to state a civil rights claim

upon which relief may be granted in this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 15, 2006 motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied; and

2. This action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

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).

DATED: March 21, 2007.

DAD:4

disn1323.56

Case 2:06-cv-01323-MCE -DAD Document 10 Filed 03/22/07 Page 3 of 3