Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05089/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05089-0/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

Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Ortiz089disrem.wpd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMY ORTIZ, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-5089 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

GRANTING LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(Docket No. 7)

Plaintiff, a state parolee proceeding pro se, filed the instant civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It is apparent from the complaint that Plaintiff seeks a writ

of habeas corpus. The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff is

GRANTED leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

DISCUSSION

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a

prisoner seeks 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 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is

Case 5:07-cv-05089-JF Document 11 Filed 02/29/08 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

Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Ortiz089disrem.wpd 2

immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be

liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

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

The majority of Plaintiff’s allegations are unintelligible. For example, he alleges,

“S.F. Parole . . . . put me in a building case settlement of Safety Healthy Codes of

California as roof pooring water sheet rock left = (toxic) I get paid $10.00 to take down

when no one else would and the exposed in a cell like room roof undone! Settlement

#821052 . . . ” In the section of the co form for listing defendants, he states: “CDCR Unit

4 . . . parole officer ordered me to live for home whereabouts is qualified CDCR rules and

property owner gave me money for building collapse in room etc. . . .” The Court cannot

discern from these allegations what claims Plaintiff wishes to present, let alone whether

he has properly alleged the required elements of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. 

In the section of the form for specifying the relief Plaintiff is seeking, Plaintiff

alleges that San Francisco police officers and prosecutors acted improperly in connection

with his placement on parole. Plaintiff states that the relief he seeks in this action is a

writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court has consistently held that any claim by a

prisoner attacking the fact or duration of his confinement must be brought by way of a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998);

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997). In particular, a prisoner must file a habeas

petition if the nature of his claim is such that it may result in his entitlement to an earlier

release, such as a claim for violation of rights in connection with parole. See Butterfield

v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874,

876-78 (9th Cir. 1990); Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989). A civil

rights complaint seeking habeas relief is subject to dismissal without prejudice to the

prisoner’s bringing his claim in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Trimble v.

Case 5:07-cv-05089-JF Document 11 Filed 02/29/08 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

1

As Plaintiff is a parolee and not a prisoner, the provisions of PLRA, codified at 28

U.S.C. § 1915(B)(1), requiring an initial partial payment and future installment payments

of the filing fee do not apply. 

Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Ortiz089disrem.wpd 3

City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). 

CONCLUSION

As the present civil rights complaint, to the extent it is intelligible, seeks habeas

relief, it is DISMISSED, without prejudice to plaintiff’s refiling his claims in a petition

for a writ of habeas corpus after he has exhausted those claims in the state courts. The

application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.1

The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 2/29/08 

JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-05089-JF Document 11 Filed 02/29/08 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

Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Ortiz089disrem.wpd 4

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Jimmy Ortiz

F-27017 

540 Jones Street, #505 

San Francisco, CA 94103

Case 5:07-cv-05089-JF Document 11 Filed 02/29/08 Page 4 of 4