Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00803/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00803-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL TIWANA, CASE NO. CV-F-06-0803 AWI DLB P

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR

vs. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et.al., [Doc. 1]

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on June 23, 2006. 

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

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court

must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous

or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief

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

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only 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 or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984),

citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also 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 must

Case 1:06-cv-00803-LJO-DLB Document 15 Filed 02/27/07 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

27

28

2

accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees,

425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve

all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that on April 3, 2006, he received a lock-up order and hearing

which resulted in a disciplinary classification hearing on April 6, 2006. Plaintiff alleges that he is a deaf

inmate and he was not provided an interpreter or hearing aid device at either hearing. As a result of the

hearing, plaintiff was removed from his program, found guilty of a serious rules violation and assessed

a time credit loss of 365 days. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied due process at his hearings because

he was not provided an interpreter. Plaintiff seeks restoration of his time credits and placement back

in general population. Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages. 

A deprivation that affects the duration of a prisoner’s sentence, such a the loss of good time

credits may, in some circumstances, implicate due process concerns. Sandin, 115 S.Ct. at 2297 (citing

with approval Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974)(state-created interest in shortened prison

sentence is an interest of “real substance”)). Such a liberty interest is limited to circumstances in which

time credits were revoked as a disciplinary action; however, such a claim is not cognizable under § 1983

unless the result of such disciplinary action has been previously overturned or otherwise invalidated.

Edwards v. Balisok, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 1587 (1997). Moreover, the act of revoking time credits must be

distinguished from the act of limiting a prisoner’s ability to prospectively earn time credits. Prisoners

have no liberty interest in earning work time credits or participating in work programs. Toussaint v.

McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 1986). The result of plaintiff’s disciplinary hearing has not

been overturned or otherwise invalidated. Therefore, plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted under section 1983. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing analysis, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this

action be dismissed, without leave to amend, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20) days

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with

Case 1:06-cv-00803-LJO-DLB Document 15 Filed 02/27/07 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

27

28

3

the court. The 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 27, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00803-LJO-DLB Document 15 Filed 02/27/07 Page 3 of 3