Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02436/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02436-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY KEVIN GOMEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JEANNE S. WOODFORED, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________

_

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2436 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 2)

Plaintiff Keith Candler, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges he was disciplined

by prison officials for violating prison rules, in a manner that violated his constitutional

rights; he further alleges that part of his punishment for the violation was the loss of 360

days of good time credits. He seeks restoration of those credits. 

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. 

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 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). 

Here, plaintiff challenges the validity of a decision by prison officials that he was
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

guilty of violating a prison rule, which decision resulted in his loss of good time credits. 

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); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). 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

the loss of good time credits. See Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874, 876-78 (9th Cir. 1990). 

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.

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

Accordingly, the instant complaint 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. In light of the dismissal, the application to proceed in forma

pauperis is DENIED. No fee is due. 

This order terminates Docket No. 2.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 14, 2005

_____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge