Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02587/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02587-0/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Lawrence Remsen, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. Civ. S 02-2587 FCD PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Edward S. Alameida, Jr.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiffs pursue a purported class action challenging the

procedures used by California with respect to parole and goodtime credits. They filed their case in the United States

District Court for the Central District of California and paid

the filing fee. That court transferred the action here. 

March 19, 2003, this court dismissed the complaint with

leave to amend on the ground plaintiffs’ claims involve the

length of their terms of imprisonment and must be pursued in

habeas corpus proceedings after they exhaust state judicial

Case 2:02-cv-02587-FCD-PAN Document 28 Filed 06/01/05 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

2

remedies. 

Plaintiffs moved the district court to reconsider the March

19, 2003, order. The district court denied the motion. 

Plaintiffs sought interlocutory appeal.

The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal January 8, 2004,

because this court’s dismissal with leave to amend was not a

final appealable order. The mandate issued March 10, 2004, and

the record on appeal was returned July 22, 2004.

May 3, 2005, plaintiffs requested judgment or for the court

to reconsider its March 19, 2003, order in light of the Supreme

Court’s recent decision in Wilkinson v. Dotson, U.S. , 125

S.Ct. 1242 (2005). 

In Wilkinson, the Court addressed when and whether prisoners

challenging state parole laws must proceed in habeas rather than

under the civil rights statute. The Court held that plaintiff

prisoners could pursue a civil rights action for declaratory and

injunctive relief because they challenged parole procedures

regarding eligibility and suitability for parole. 125 S.Ct. at

1248. Thus, success for those plaintiffs would not necessarily

spell immediate or speedier release.

Here, plaintiffs claim that state laws under which the Board

of Prison Terms determines when inmates imprisoned for a term of

years to life are suitable for parole, violate due process and

the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They

seek an order declaring that the California Board of Prison Terms

has no jurisdiction with respect to their sentences and an

Case 2:02-cv-02587-FCD-PAN Document 28 Filed 06/01/05 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

3

injunction requiring the California Department of Corrections to

apply credit for good-time served. They contend that “after July

1, 1977, the punishment must be the same for each person

committing the same offense.” Petition for Injunction and

Declaratory Relief at p. 17. Plaintiffs seek enforcement of

their “right to know the certainty of the penalty” for their

offenses. Id. at 19. Thus, relief in plaintiffs’ favor would

mean plaintiff Remsen is entitled to release after serving 20

years in prison, Watson to release after 34 years, Thabet, Hummel

and Paradela to release after 15 years, and Masse to release

after 25 years (all less good time credit).

These claims “fall within the implicit habeas exception”

described in Wilkinson. 125 S.Ct. at 1248. March 19, 2003, the

court dismissed plaintiffs’ pleading for failure to state a claim

under civil rights statutes, with leave to amend to file a

petition for habeas corpus. It is clear plaintiffs will not

amend their pleading.

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends this action be

dismissed for failure to state a claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Within 20 days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiffs may

file written objections. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”

The district judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings

Case 2:02-cv-02587-FCD-PAN Document 28 Filed 06/01/05 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

4

and recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: May 31, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:02-cv-02587-FCD-PAN Document 28 Filed 06/01/05 Page 4 of 4