Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02795/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02795-1/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

ALBERTO SOLIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2795 GGH P

vs.

JOHN HAVILLAND, Warden, et al., ORDER and

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On October 7, 2009, plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is referred to this court by Local Rule

302(c), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also E.D. Cal. L. R. (“Local Rule”), Appx. A, at

(k)(1)-(2). Plaintiff challenges two prison disciplinary convictions resulting in the forfeiture of

work-time credits. Plaintiff seeks expungement of the charges, restoration of his work-time

credits, and damages. For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that this action be

dismissed.

Plaintiff is incarcerated at California State Prison - Solano. He alleges that on

October 15, 2008, contraband (a controlled substance) not belonging to him was found in his cell

by Correctional Officer Kiehlmeier. Plaintiff was charged with a Rule Violation Report (“RVR”

or “CDC Form 115”), No. S2-08-12-1599, and convicted on April 1, 2009. Disposition included

Case 2:09-cv-02795-GEB-GGH Document 6 Filed 01/19/10 Page 1 of 4
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

forfeiture of 130 days of work-time credits, pursuant to 15 Cal. Code. Regs. 3323 (d)(7)(A)(1)

(authorizing credit forfeiture of 121-130 days for “Division ‘B’ Offense” of unauthorized

possession of a controlled substance). See Docket 1, at 20.

Plaintiff alleges that his cell had not been inspected and cleared prior to his 

assignment, as required by 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3287(a)(4). Plaintiff also alleges that he was

not timely served with notice of his RVR, as required by 15 Cal. Code. Regs. § 3320, which

requires that such information “normally be provided to the inmate within 15 days from the date

the information leading to the charges is discovered by staff,” but may be delayed up to 45 days. 

15 Cal. Code. Regs. § 3320(a), (a)(1). Plaintiff alleges that he was served on December 26,

2008, more than two months after discovery of the contraband. 

Plaintiff further alleges that he receives mental health care pursuant to 15 Cal.

Code. Regs. § 3317, and the “‘Coleman’ remedial plan,” requiring that he obtain a mental health

evaluation prior to being documented for a rule violation, but that no such evaluation was

provided. Finally, plaintiff alleges that on July 10, 2009, he was again found guilty of, and

punished for, the same charge, although the complaint lacks details.

Plaintiff names several employees of CSP-Solano as defendants herein, and has

attached several documents in support of his complaint, including a copy of the operative RVR,

and pertinent administrative decisions. Plaintiff contends that defendants violated his Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by inappropriately charging and convicting him, and

failing to adhere to pertinent procedures set forth in the California Code of Regulations. Plaintiff

relies on application of the “Accardi doctrine,” which references the Supreme Court’s holding in

United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 74 S.Ct. 499 (1954), that an

administrative agency is required to adhere to its own internal operating procedures as well as

formal rules. In addition to damages, plaintiff seeks expungement of the charges and restoration

of his good-time credits.

\\\\\

Case 2:09-cv-02795-GEB-GGH Document 6 Filed 01/19/10 Page 2 of 4
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

 The court does not recommend dismissal with leave to file a petition for writ of habeas 1

corpus within the present action due to the requirement that plaintiff first exhaust his state court

remedies. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 839-40, 119 S. Ct. 1728 (1999) (“[f]ederal

habeas relief is available to state prisoners only after they have exhausted their claims in state

3

In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994), the United States

Supreme Court ruled that an action challenging the lawfulness of a plaintiff’s conviction is not

cognizable under Section 1983 unless the conviction has been invalidated. The Supreme Court

affirmed the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the complaint and held that:

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 § 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. A claim for damages

bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not

been so invalidated is not cognizable under 1983.

Heck, 512 U.S. at 486, 114 S. Ct. at 2372. The Court extended this holding to prison disciplinary

hearings in Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S. Ct. 1584 (1997), wherein the Supreme

Court held that Heck applies to actions “challenging the validity of the procedures used to

deprive an inmate of good-time credits.” Balisok, 520 U.S. at 643. In contrast, a civil rights

action challenging hearing procedures may be maintained if the result of the “disciplinary hearing

or administrative sanction does not affect the overall length of the prisoner's confinement .” 

Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 858 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied sub nom. McEnroe v.

Ramirez, 541 U.S. 1063 (2004). 

Since plaintiff seeks restoration of the work-time credits forfeited as a result of his

prison disciplinary convictions, and these convictions have not been invalidated, expunged or

reversed, this action may not proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486; Balisok,

520 U.S. at 643. Accordingly, this action should be dismissed. Plaintiff may file a new action

seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1

Case 2:09-cv-02795-GEB-GGH Document 6 Filed 01/19/10 Page 3 of 4
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 court”). 

4

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of

the Court assign a district judge to this case.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

DISMISSED.

These findings and recommendations are 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 ten

(10) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are

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: January 19, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:09-cv-02795-GEB-GGH Document 6 Filed 01/19/10 Page 4 of 4