Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00518/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00518-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

CHARLES LOWELL KENTZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CURTIS LOGAN,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00518-OWW-SMS PC

FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION FOR

DISMISSAL OF ACTION, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE

GRANTED

(Doc. 11) 

OBJECTION DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Finding and Recommendation Following Screening of Second Amended Complaint

I. Summary of Plaintiff’s Claim

Plaintiff Charles Lowell Kentz (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this

civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403

U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. Plaintiff

filed this action on March 30, 2007. On April 12, 2007, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and

on August 2, 2007, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

In this action, Plaintiff is seeking money damages and equitable relief against Defendant

Curtis Logan, who was a disciplinary hearing officer at Taft Correctional Institution during the

period of time relevant to this action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Due Process

Clause of the United States Constitution when he “failed to provide the plaintiff with a written

statement of reasons and the evidence used to find the plaintiff guilty of ‘fighting with another

person’ for more than one year. (Doc. 11, pg. 1.)

Case 1:07-cv-00518-OWW -SMS Document 22 Filed 04/16/08 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

II. 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).

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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).

“Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court may dismiss a complaint only

if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with

the allegations. Id. at 514. 

III. Plaintiff’s Claim is Barred by the Habeas Termination Rule

In this instance, Plaintiff is challenging the events relating to the disciplinary hearing at which

he was found guilty and assessed, in relevant part, a time credit forfeiture. Plaintiff is seeking

expungement of the charge, in addition to damages. “[A] . . . prisoner’s [civil rights] action is barred

(absent prior invalidation) - no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the

target of the prisoner’s suit ([government] 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); Muhammad

v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 751, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 (2004); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648

(1997). Because the finding of guilt at the disciplinary affected the length of Plaintiff’s sentence,

his claim is barred under Bivens until such time as he invalidates the result of the disciplinary

hearing via the prison’s administrative remedy process or a petition for writ of habeas corpus relief.

Id. 

///

Case 1:07-cv-00518-OWW -SMS Document 22 Filed 04/16/08 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

IV. Conclusion and Recommendation

Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the habeas termination rule. Therefore, the Court HEREBY

RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be 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 thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00518-OWW -SMS Document 22 Filed 04/16/08 Page 3 of 3