Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00771/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00771-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KHALAFALA KHALAFALA, No. CIV S-07-0771-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHRISTOPHER HYDEN-MYER,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

Case 2:07-cv-00771-GEB-CMK Document 8 Filed 05/24/07 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

84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are

satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds

upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff

must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which

support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it

is impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are

vague and conclusory. 

Plaintiff names as the only defendant Christopher Hyden-Myers, the courtappointed attorney who represented him at his criminal trial. Plaintiff states that counsel was

deficient in a number of ways and seeks $1 million in damages. 

Plaintiff’s claim is not cognizable in a civil rights action under § 1983. Where a

§ 1983 action seeking monetary damages or declaratory relief alleges constitutional violations

which would necessarily imply the invalidity of the prisoner’s underlying conviction or sentence,

such a claim is not cognizable under § 1983 unless the conviction or sentence has first been

invalidated on appeal, by habeas petition, or through some similar proceeding. See Edwards v.

Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1987) (holding that § 1983 claim not cognizable because allegations

of procedural defects and a biased hearing officer implied the invalidity of the underlying prison

disciplinary sanction); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-84 (1994) (concluding that § 1983

not cognizable because allegations were akin to malicious prosecution action which includes as

an element a finding that the criminal proceeding was concluded in plaintiff’s favor); Butterfield

v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 1997) (concluding that § 1983 claim not cognizable

because allegations of procedural defects were an attempt to challenge substantive result in

parole hearing); but see Neal, 131 F.3d at 824 (concluding that § 1983 claim was cognizable

because challenge was to conditions for parole eligibility and not to any particular parole

determination). 

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-00771-GEB-CMK Document 8 Filed 05/24/07 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

If a § 1983 complaint states claims which sound in habeas, the court should not

convert the complaint into a habeas petition. See id.; Trimble, 49 F.3d at 586. Rather, such

claims must be dismissed without prejudice and the complaint should proceed on any remaining

cognizable § 1983 claims. See Balisok, 520 U.S. at 649; Heck, 512 U.S. at 487; Trimble, 49

F.3d at 585.

Here, plaintiff’s claim necessarily implies the invalidity of his underlying

conviction because, if plaintiff’s allegations are true, he was denied his Sixth Amendment right

to counsel. Plaintiff must first challenge the underlying conviction by way of habeas corpus. In

the meantime, the instant complaint must be dismissed without prejudice.

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be

cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of

the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be

dismissed without prejudice.

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 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” 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: May 24, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00771-GEB-CMK Document 8 Filed 05/24/07 Page 3 of 3