Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02629/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02629-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL C. SAIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2629 LKK JFM P

vs.

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS,

et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application is incomplete in that the certificate

portion of the request which must be completed by plaintiff’s institution of incarceration has not

been filled out. Also, plaintiff has not filed a certified copy of his prison trust account statement

for the six month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(2). For this reason, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied

without prejudice. 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02629-LKK -JFM Document 6 Filed 02/06/06 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

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 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). 

Plaintiff challenges the sufficiency of the evidence used to support a November 3,

2005 decision to revoke his parole. Plaintiff seeks money damages. 

In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the United States Supreme Court held

that a suit for damages on a civil rights claim concerning an allegedly unconstitutional

Case 2:05-cv-02629-LKK -JFM Document 6 Filed 02/06/06 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

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 1

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

3

conviction or imprisonment cannot be maintained absent proof “that the conviction or sentence

has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state

tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486. Under Heck, the

court is required to determine whether a judgment in plaintiff's favor in this case would

necessarily invalidate his conviction or sentence. Id. If it would, the complaint must be

dismissed unless the plaintiff can show that the conviction or sentence has been invalidated. 

This court finds that plaintiff’s action implicates the validity of plaintiff’s

confinement pursuant to the November 2005 parole revocation, and that plaintiff has not shown

that the revocation and the confinement thereon has been invalidated. For that reason, this 

§ 1983 action should be dismissed without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d

583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has authorized courts to

construe actions challenging the fact or duration of a prisoner’s confinement as habeas corpus

actions in appropriate circumstances. See Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F. 2d 330 (9th Cir. 1991). The

exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for writ of habeas

corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must be waived explicitly by

respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A waiver of exhaustion, thus, may not be 1

implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest

state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to the

federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083,

1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

After reviewing the complaint filed in this action, the court finds that plaintiff has

not exhausted state court remedies. Plaintiff’s parole was revoked on November 3, 2005 and this

Case 2:05-cv-02629-LKK -JFM Document 6 Filed 02/06/06 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

 Plaintiff is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of 2

limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one

year period will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the

conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the

statute of limitations is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other

collateral review is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

4

action was filed one month later, in early December 2005. There is no indication that plaintiff’s 

claims have been presented to the California Supreme Court, nor does it appear that state court

remedies are unavailable to petitioner. For these reasons, it would be inappropriate to construe

the instant action as one for federal habeas corpus relief.

For all of the foregoing reasons, this action should be dismissed without

prejudice.

2

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s

December 28, 2005 application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied without prejudice; and 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

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

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to 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: February 6, 2006.

12;sain2629.56

Case 2:05-cv-02629-LKK -JFM Document 6 Filed 02/06/06 Page 4 of 4