Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02120/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02120-0/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

LATRAYL D. ARTHER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2120 LEW DAD P

vs.

BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner in custody at Deuel Vocational Institution, is proceeding

pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action was transferred to this

court from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California because “[p]laintiff

complains that his constitutional rights were violated by state officials located in Sacramento,

California.” (Order of Transfer, filed 10/9/07, at 1.)

In his civil rights complaint, plaintiff sets out vague and disjointed allegations. 

For example, plaintiff contends that a “charge” was dismissed, that the arresting officer lied, and

that he faces double jeopardy despite the dismissal of the charge. Plaintiff requests that the court

“overturn my violation sentence[,] dismiss my violation charge on the basis of the arresting

officer’s testimony and release me immediately as well as have this charge removed

permanantely [sic] from my record.” (Compl. at 3-4.) The court presumes that plaintiff is

Case 2:07-cv-02120-LEW-DAD Document 4 Filed 10/18/07 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

2

challenging a parole revocation because he has named the Board of Parole Hearings and Deputy

Commissioner J. Nielsen as defendants. 

Plaintiff is advised that when a prisoner challenges the fact or duration of his

custody and a determination of his action may result in plaintiff's entitlement to an earlier release,

his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475

(1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990). It appears that plaintiff seeks habeas

relief because he seeks his release from custody. Therefore, the court will dismiss the complaint

and grant plaintiff leave to file an amended habeas petition. Plaintiff is advised that in his

amended petition, he must provide the date of the parole revocation hearing which he is

challenging. He must name as a respondent, the state officer having custody of him. See Stanley

v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir.1994). In addition, 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). The exhaustion requirement is satisfied 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). 

Plaintiff has filed an application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

The court will order plaintiff to file a new application on the form used by this district. Plaintiff

must also clarify whether he is currently receiving $800.60 per month in social security. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the form provided by the court; the amended

petition must comply with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; the petition

must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Petition;”

plaintiff must file an original and one copy of the amended petition.

Case 2:07-cv-02120-LEW-DAD Document 4 Filed 10/18/07 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

3

3. Plaintiff must file a new application requesting leave to proceed in forma

pauperis.

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide plaintiff with the court’s form

petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a state prisoner and an application for requesting leave to

proceed in forma pauperis.

5. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this

action.

DATED: October 17, 2007.

DAD:4

arth2120.9

Case 2:07-cv-02120-LEW-DAD Document 4 Filed 10/18/07 Page 3 of 3