Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01312/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01312-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID E. RIVERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. J. MILLER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01312 DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff David E. Rivera (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on August 

22, 2014.

1

 He names C. J. Miller, N. Lopez, J. Hill, J. Spoerer, C. Wofford, R. Briggs, and J. A. 

Zamora as Defendants. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate on September 2, 2014.

Case 1:14-cv-01312-SKO Document 6 Filed 07/17/15 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

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 

‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other 

federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 

(9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions or 

omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior 

liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 

1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim 

for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Avenal State Prison where the events giving rise to this 

action took place. 

Plaintiff alleges the following. On September 18, 2013, a cellphone was found in possession 

of Inmate Castillo. As a result of this confiscation, a Rules Violation Report was issued on October 

10, 2013, to approximately 16 inmates including Plaintiff for possession of a cellular phone. On 

October 12, 2013, Plaintiff was found guilty of possession of a cellular phone and assessed a 90-day 

Case 1:14-cv-01312-SKO Document 6 Filed 07/17/15 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

loss of credits. 

Plaintiff complains that certain time constraints were exceeded, and therefore, the forfeiture 

of credits was unauthorized. Further, Plaintiff complains that he was not allowed to submit a 

declaration from Inmate Castillo in his defense which would have exonerated him.

Plaintiff seeks restoration of the 90 day credit loss. He requests that the guilty finding be 

vacated and a new hearing ordered.

C. DISCUSSION

“[A] state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) - no matter the relief 

sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading 

to conviction or internal prison proceedings) - if success in that action would necessarily 

demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-2, 

125 S.Ct. 1242, 1248 (2005).

Where, as here, “success in a . . . [section] 1983 damages action would implicitly question 

the validity of conviction or duration of sentence, the litigant must first achieve favorable 

termination of his available state, or federal habeas, opportunities to challenge the underlying 

conviction or sentence.” Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 751, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 (2004) 

(citing to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994)); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 

641, 648 (1997) (applying Heck to a prison disciplinary hearing where good-time credits were 

affected). Because the punishment imposed at the disciplinary hearing affects the duration of 

Plaintiff’s sentence, Plaintiff’s due process claim is barred until such time as Plaintiff invalidates the 

result of the disciplinary hearing. The deficiencies at issue are not curable by amendment. 

Therefore, the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-01312-SKO Document 6 Filed 07/17/15 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

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 

1983. Because the nature of the deficiencies are not curable by amendment, Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 

F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim, thus terminating the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01312-SKO Document 6 Filed 07/17/15 Page 4 of 4