Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02247/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02247-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLEMENT BROWN, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

S. ORNOWSKI, Warden; BPH, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-2247 JSW (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, has filed a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the constitutionality of state parole

proceedings, in which, he contends, the Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”) has denied

him due process by arbitrarily characterizing all murders, including his, as "particularly

cruel or egregious." Plaintiff has paid the filing fee. Plaintiff asserts that his claim is

cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, citing Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005). 

However, Plaintiff has another case pending in this Court under Case No. C-05-3139

JSW (PR), alleging the same claim in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Therefore,

the instant case is DISMISSED as duplicative of Plaintiff’s earlier filed petition 

currently pending before this Court. 

Case 3:06-cv-02247-JSW Document 3 Filed 08/28/06 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

27

28 2

DISCUSSION

I Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be

liberally construed, however. 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 alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state

law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

II Duplicative Claims

A complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be

dismissed under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,

1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). In this

case, Plaintiff raises the identical claim as that alleged in his current petition for a writ of

habeas corpus. Plaintiff has also filed the identical supporting documentation, the

declarations of several hundred prisoners all of whom assert that they were denied parole

based on a finding that their commitment offense was “particularly or especially cruel,

callous, heinous or egregious.”

The Supreme Court has held that habeas corpus may not be the exclusive remedy

for challenging the constitutionality of state parole procedures which do not necessarily

result in an earlier release, Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005). In Wilkinson,

Case 3:06-cv-02247-JSW Document 3 Filed 08/28/06 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

27

28 3

the Court held that prisoners’ parole claims seeking a new parole hearing need not be

brought in habeas corpus because the relief sought would not necessarily “invalidate the

duration of their confinement–either directly through an injunction compelling speedier

release or indirectly through a judicial determination that necessarily implies the

unlawfulness of the State’s custody.” Id. at 79 (finding that the exception to § 1983

coverage for claims at the core of habeas corpus relief in Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

475, 500 (1973) does not include procedural challenges where relief under § 1983 was

left available by the Court’s subsequent holding in Wolff v. McDonald, 418 U.S. 539,

554 (1974)). However, while Wilkinson provides that a plaintiff seeking relief in the

form of a new hearing in a case alleging unconstitutional parole eligibility proceedings

may do so under § 1983 (rather than by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus), it does

not require that this Court allow an individual to pursue identical claims seeking the

same relief in two separate cases pending before it. 

In the instant case, Plaintiff requests declaratory and injunctive relief in the form

of a declaration that the Board has denied him due process and that this Court "enjoin the

BPH from violating due process." This Court need not now address the question of

whether injunctive relief may be available regarding future parole proceedings (see

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648-49 (1997), citing O'Shea v. Littleton, 414

U.S.488, 501-02 (1974) (noting that a “proper balance in the concurrent operation of

federal and state court counsels restraint against the issuance of injunctions against state

officers engaged in the administration of the state’s criminal laws(.)”) However, Plaintiff

is seeking the identical relief through his ongoing habeas proceedings, namely, a decision

that the BPH has violated his rights and the relief available if the writ is granted, which

would include a determination of parole eligibility free of constitutional error. Because

this Court already has before it a proceeding to adjudicate that same claim, the instant

case is DISMISSED. 

Case 3:06-cv-02247-JSW Document 3 Filed 08/28/06 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

27

28 4

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and good cause shown, Plaintiff’s action is

DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment on this matter and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 28, 2006

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02247-JSW Document 3 Filed 08/28/06 Page 4 of 4