Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01092/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01092-1/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

 Although plaintiff has not as yet filed a completed in forma pauperis affidavit, because

1

the court finds this matter should be summarily dismissed, the court, on this occasion, will not

assess a filing fee. 

 See also, Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, __ F. Supp.2d ___, 2008 WL 793791 (E.D. Cal. 2

March 25, 2008). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD SECRETAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-1092 MCE GGH P

vs.

BPH/CDCR, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By Order, filed on 6/24/08, the court dismissed plaintiff’s filing with leave to

amend to file either a petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, or a civil

rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with an in forma pauperis affidavit or the

appropriate filing fee. Plaintiff, a state prisoner at Wasco State Prison, had filed a document 1

styled “Notice of federal civil right suit,” wherein plaintiff appeared to be challenging a parole

revocation, alleging denial of his due process rights, citing Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, Case

CIV S 94-0671 LKK GGH P. Plaintiff’s filing was dismissed because it was unclear whether 2

plaintiff intended to bring a separate civil rights action alleging an unconstitutional state parole

Case 2:08-cv-01092-MCE -GGH Document 10 Filed 07/21/08 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

revocation system or whether he sought to challenge his particular revocation decision. 

Plaintiff has subsequently filed a civil rights action, challenging his particular

parole revocation hearing at Santa Barbara County Jail, wherein he was allegedly denied his

Sixth Amendment right to confront/cross-examine adverse witnesses. Plaintiff seeks relief in the

form of “a settlement & release agreement.” Amended Complaint, p. 3. Therefore, plaintiff is

not challenging the constitutionality of the state parole revocation process, but rather expressly

seeks his own immediate release from prison based on what occurred at his parole revocation

hearing, making clear that he may not proceed in this civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S. Ct. 1242, 1248 (2005). Plaintiff was also

previously cautioned that to the extent that he is a class member of the Valdivia class action

brought by parolees, individual class members are generally barred from pursuing individual

lawsuits seeking equitable relief that is within the subject matter of the class action. Gillespie v.

Crawford, 858 F.2d 1101, 1102-03 (5 Cir. 1988); McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163 th

Moreover, to the extent that plaintiff may be seeking money damages as well as

immediate injunctive relief, this action appears to be barred by In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994), an Indiana state prisoner brought a civil rights action under § 1983

for damages. Claiming that state and county officials violated his constitutional rights, he sought

damages for improprieties in the investigation leading to his arrest, for the destruction of

evidence, and for conduct during his trial (“illegal and unlawful voice identification procedure”). 

Convicted on voluntary manslaughter charges, and serving a fifteen year term, plaintiff did not

seek injunctive relief or release from custody. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the

Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the complaint and held that:

in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional

conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,

a § 1983 plaintiff must prove 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

Case 2:08-cv-01092-MCE -GGH Document 10 Filed 07/21/08 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

 Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 3

F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126

(1981). 

3

of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages

bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not

been so invalidated is not cognizable under 1983.

Heck, 512 U.S. at 486, 114 S. Ct. at 2372. The Court expressly held that a cause of action for

damages under § 1983 concerning a criminal conviction or sentence cannot exist unless the

conviction or sentence has been invalidated, expunged or reversed. Id.

Where plaintiff remains incarcerated and seeks money damages for

constitutionally deficient parole revocation hearing procedures, he must first successfully

challenge the revocation procedures by way of a habeas corpus petition and demonstrate that the

revocation has been invalidated. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 118 S. Ct. 978 (1998);

Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 704-705 (9 Cir. 2006). th

As plaintiff was previously informed:

Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related

to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. 2254,

and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. 

1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1983. Challenges to the validity of

any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the

province of habeas corpus, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,

500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) ....

Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S.749, 750, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 (2004) (per curiam). 

The court takes judicial notice that, subsequent to the filing of this action, 3

plaintiff filed a habeas petition challenging the constitutionality of the procedures of the parole

revocation hearing at issue herein. See Secretan v. Warden, CIV-S-08-1459 GGH P. This

putative civil rights complaint should be summarily dismissed as premature. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be summarily

dismissed.

Case 2:08-cv-01092-MCE -GGH Document 10 Filed 07/21/08 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

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 twenty

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

objections with the court. Such a 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: 07/21/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

secr1092.fr

Case 2:08-cv-01092-MCE -GGH Document 10 Filed 07/21/08 Page 4 of 4