Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02529/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02529-4/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAWN HAWK,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITAION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-2529 KJM CKD P

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is proceeding in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is now 

before the court.

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).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Case 2:15-cv-02529-KJM-CKD Document 17 Filed 04/15/16 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

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 

Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 

this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital 

Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. 

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

The court has conducted the required screening of plaintiff’s amended complaint. The 

impetus behind plaintiff’s initiation of this action is the fact that he was denied parole by the 

California Board of Parole Hearings in 2012. Plaintiff challenged aspects of the decision denying 

him parole in a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this court on August 8, 2014 and denied 

October 26, 2015.1 Plaintiff does not seek release on parole in this action [nor could he, see

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (when a state prisoner challenges the legality of 

his custody and the relief he seeks is the determination of his entitlement to an earlier or 

immediate release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus)], he seeks declaratory 

relief, injunctive relief and monetary relief based on claims which all concern his being denied 

parole. But plaintiff fails to point to facts suggesting he has suffered a violation of any federal 

right which would support a grant of any of the relief requested. For example, plaintiff complains 

about the contents of psychological evaluations which were used at his 2012 parole hearing, but 

 

1

 Hawk v. California Board of Parole Hearings, 2:14-cv-2003 WBS KJN P.

Case 2:15-cv-02529-KJM-CKD Document 17 Filed 04/15/16 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

fails to allege facts suggesting either the contents of the evaluations or their use violate federal 

law in any respect. 

Because plaintiff fails to identify any facts suggesting he is entitled to any of the relief 

requested, or any relief at all, the court recommends that plaintiff’s amended complaint be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, without granting leave to 

amend a second time.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed; and

2. This case be closed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 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).

Dated: April 15, 2016

1

hawk2529.dis

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-02529-KJM-CKD Document 17 Filed 04/15/16 Page 3 of 3