Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02598/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02598-3/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

On January 13, 2006, pursuant to an order from this court, plaintiff filed an affidavit 1

requesting authority to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff did not fill

out the Eastern District’s in forma pauperis form. Instead, he filled out an AO form. Further,

plaintiff did not file a certified statement of his prison trust account statement for the six month

period immediately proceeding the filing of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). However,

given the other deficiencies in plaintiff’s complaint, the undersigned does not address the

problems with plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALONZO BROWN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2598 MCE CMK P

vs.

B. YOUNG, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 by the authority of 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

Plaintiff’s complaint challenges the fact or duration of his confinement rather than

the conditions of his confinement. Plaintiff’s complaint states that defendant B. Young “actuated

[plaintiff’s] parole date when [he] was never paroled and was still in CDC custody. [Plaintiff’s]

Case 2:05-cv-02598-MCE -CMK Document 13 Filed 02/23/06 Page 1 of 2
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

Wilkinson stated that prisoners could challenge the constitutionality of state parole 2

procedures in a § 1983 action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and were not required to

instead seek relief exclusively under federal habeas statutes. 

2

parole date was never calculated right in the first place...” Because plaintiff is challenging the

duration of his confinement and is not seeing declaratory or injunctive relief regarding conditions

of confinement see Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) , this action does not lie in 42 2

U.S.C. § 1942. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991)(habeas petition is proper

method to challenge legality or duration of confinement, but civil rights action is proper method

of challenging conditions of confinement). Accordingly, it is appropriate to dismiss this action

without issuing an order to show cause. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286,

298-99 (1969). 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s civil rights action be dismissed. 

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 ten days

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

with 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).

DATED: February 23, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02598-MCE -CMK Document 13 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 2