Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03825/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03825-0/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

ADRIAN W. BATES, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-3825 TEH (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DENYING

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AND INSTRUCTIONS TO

THE CLERK

(Docket no. 2)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the state of California formerly incarcerated at San Quentin

State Prison, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff also

filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 2). This order

dismisses the complaint and DENIES leave to proceed in forma pauperis as moot

(docket no. 2).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s complaint challenges Plaintiff’s detention as a result of a parole

violation proceeding in which Plaintiff alleges that his rights were violated and he

received a sentence “a year past my discharge date.” Plaintiff’s complaint seeks relief in

the form of release from custody and a reversal of the guilty finding on the parole

violation.

 A. Standard of Review

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

Case 3:06-cv-03825-TEH Document 9 Filed 04/09/07 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

27

28 2

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

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims,

and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

such relief. See id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See

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 essential

elements: (1) that a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United

States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person

acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claim

In this case, Plaintiff has improperly filed his claim as a civil rights action. 

Traditionally, challenges to prison conditions have been cognizable only via § 1983,

while challenges implicating the fact or duration of confinement must be brought

through a habeas petition. Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024, 1026 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Any claim by a prisoner attacking the validity or duration of his confinement must

be brought under the habeas sections of Title 28 of the United States Code. Calderon v.

Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). A

prisoner must bring a habeas petition if the nature of his claim is such that it would

necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or continuing confinement. Butterfield

v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997) (§ 1983 claim). 

A district court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner attacking the

conditions of his confinement as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971). The opposite is not true, however: a

civil rights complaint seeking habeas relief should be dismissed without prejudice to

bringing it as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49

Case 3:06-cv-03825-TEH Document 9 Filed 04/09/07 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

27

28 3

F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995).

In this case, Plaintiff’s claims necessarily imply the invalidity of his continuing

confinement and his parole violation conviction. As such, they are DISMISSED without

prejudice.

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot

and no fee is due (docket no. 2). The Clerk of Court shall close the file and enter

judgment in accordance with this order.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 04/09/07 THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03825-TEH Document 9 Filed 04/09/07 Page 3 of 3