Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02119/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02119-0/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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT E. WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-2119-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil action.1 He alleges that 

in May of 2014, he and defendant Sung had a physical encounter. He claims that six months 

later, Amador County “pick[ed] up the case,” and his attorney “did very little” to represent him. 

ECF No. 1 at 4. According to the complaint and its exhibits, plaintiff was found guilty in the 

Amador County Superior Court of battery on a non-confined person by a prisoner. Id. at 4, 20. 

Through this action, plaintiff requests that his case “be investigated because [he] is a victim of 

wrongdoing” and was “put back into prison to do 6 year[s] without investigation [and] all base[d] 

on hearsay . . . .” Id. at 3. As explained below, this action must be dismissed without prejudice 

to plaintiff’s pursuit of an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

///// 

 1

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

§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. See E.D. Cal. Local 

Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 

Case 2:15-cv-02119-EFB Document 5 Filed 01/07/16 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 

27 

28 

2

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

As a general rule, a challenge in federal court to the fact of conviction or the length of 

confinement must be raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). Where success in a section 1983 action would 

implicitly question the validity of confinement or its duration, the plaintiff must first show that 

the underlying conviction was reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared 

invalid by a state tribunal, or questioned by the grant of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 751 (2004). 

Plaintiff’s success in this action would necessarily implicate the duration of his 

confinement because he is challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Amador 

County Superior Court. Accordingly, a writ of habeas corpus is plaintiff’s sole remedy in federal 

court, which he may pursue only after exhausting all of his constitutional claims in state court. 

Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed without leave to amend. See Gardner v. 

Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1105 (9th Cir. 

2011) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely 

clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” (internal quotation 

marks omitted)); Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] district court 

should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it 

determines that the pleading could not be cured by the allegation of other facts.”). 

///// 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-02119-EFB Document 5 Filed 01/07/16 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 

27 

28 

3

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed without 

prejudice to plaintiff’s proper pursuit of habeas corpus relief in a new action. 

DATED: January 7, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-02119-EFB Document 5 Filed 01/07/16 Page 3 of 3