Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00097/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00097-0/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 AARON JAYNE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0097 DFL DAD P

vs.

ARNOLD Schwarzenegger, 

et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

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

§ 1915. The proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance with

Local Rule 72-302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

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

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

§ 1915A(a). Pursuant to the screening requirement, the court must dismiss claims that are legally

frivolous or malicious, claims that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and

claims that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1) and (2). Similarly, when a plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the

court is required to dismiss the case if the court determines that the action is frivolous or

Case 2:06-cv-00097-LKK-DAD Document 5 Filed 06/15/06 Page 1 of 5
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

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a

defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(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 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 claim should 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

that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); 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 accepts as true the allegations of the complaint. See

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). The court also construes

the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolves all doubts in the plaintiff’s

favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

In the present case, plaintiff is a state prisoner confined in Deuel Vocational

Institution. Plaintiff has sued the current governor of the State of California, a former secretary

of the California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, a former director of the California

Department of Corrections, a deputy director of the CDC Parole and Community Services

Division, and numerous commissioners and deputy commissioners of the Board of Prison Terms.

Plaintiff alleges as follows: On October 11, 2005, he was arrested in Shasta

County for suspected assault, resisting arrest, and carjacking; he was found factually innocent of

all charges; subsequently, a probable cause hearing was held on parole violation charges of

assault, carjacking, threats, stalking, and resisting; the deputy commissioner dropped all charges

Case 2:06-cv-00097-LKK-DAD Document 5 Filed 06/15/06 Page 2 of 5
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

except the charge of resisting; at the parole revocation hearing, the deputy commissioner found

good cause to revoke parole and took away plaintiff’s good time credits; plaintiff’s rights were

violated at the hearing; plaintiff appealed the finding of good cause in the state courts through a

petition for writ of habeas corpus; plaintiff had difficulty preparing the writ because he needed a

written transcript of the tape recorded hearing.

Plaintiff alleges that he is unlawfully confined because of Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendment violations that occurred during his parole revocation proceedings. Plaintiff seeks a

permanent injunction applicable to his own hearing and all future parole revocation hearings for

all parolees. Plaintiff seeks to (1) prohibit use of any evidence not disclosed to the parolee prior

to the hearing; (2) require preparation of written transcripts of all hearings; (3) prohibit the Board

from proceeding on any charge for which the parolee was found factually innocent by a court or

jury; (4) prohibit the appearance of any witness not disclosed in reports given to the parolee prior

to the hearing; (5) require that the appointed attorney who represents the parolee at his probable

cause hearing also represent the parolee at the revocation hearing unless the parolee waives this

requirement; (6) prohibit the use of hearsay unless the parolee can, on the same day the hearsay is

offered, confront the person who provided the information; and (7) prohibit use of juvenile

records as a basis for taking away good time credits.

Plaintiff requests that defendants be required to pay compensatory damages of

$150.00 per day for the twelve-month period of custody imposed on him as a result of the

violation of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff also requests punitive damages in an amount to be

determined by a jury.

When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody and the relief he seeks

will result in an earlier or immediate release from confinement, his sole federal remedy is a writ

of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). The plaintiff in this civil

rights case was pursuing habeas corpus relief in the state courts when he filed this action on

January 17, 2006. Plaintiff subsequently filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus

Case 2:06-cv-00097-LKK-DAD Document 5 Filed 06/15/06 Page 3 of 5
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

challenging his December 15, 2005 parole revocation. See Michael Aaron Jayne v. Director,

California Dep’t of Corrections, case No. CIV S-06-0823 DFL DAD P (filed April 24, 2006). 

The injunctive relief requested by plaintiff in this civil rights action is sought for the purpose of

invalidating his 2005 parole revocation. To the extent that plaintiff seeks habeas relief in a civil

rights action, his claims are duplicative of the claims alleged in his habeas case and must be

dismissed as improperly presented in a civil rights case.

When a prisoner seeks money damages for confinement that is alleged to be

unlawful, the prisoner may not seek damages pursuant to § 1983 until he has established, through

appropriate state or federal remedies, that his confinement is or was in fact unlawful. Edwards v.

Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Plaintiff’s

2005 parole revocation has not been invalidated. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for damages is

premature. To the extent that plaintiff seeks damages for his parole revocation and/or his loss of

time credits, his claims are not cognizable under § 1983 at this time and must be dismissed

without prejudice. Plaintiff may re-file such claims in a new case at a later time if his parole

revocation is “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.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87.

It is evident that plaintiff cannot amend his pleading to state a claim that is

cognizable in federal court at the present time. The complaint should therefore be dismissed

without leave to amend. See Coakley v. Murphy, 884 F.2d 1218, 1221-22 (9th Cir. 1989). In

light of the fact that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

at this time, the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice and

that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.

Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The United States

Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent

indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298

Case 2:06-cv-00097-LKK-DAD Document 5 Filed 06/15/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

(1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.

1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the

court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s motion will therefore be

denied.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s January 17, 2006 motion for

appointment of counsel is denied; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s January 17, 2006 application to proceed in forma pauperis be

denied; and

2. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim that is

cognizable at this time.

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. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 15, 2006.

DAD:13

jayn0097.56

Case 2:06-cv-00097-LKK-DAD Document 5 Filed 06/15/06 Page 5 of 5